Skip to main content

Full text of "Texts and margins of the revised New Testament : affecting theological doctrine briefly reviewed"

See other formats 


3ffrnm  tl|^  Etbrarg  nf 

S?q«f  atl^rb  bg  Ijtm  to 
tl|?  Etbrarg  of 

J^nnrrtdtt  Sljrnlogtral  S^rmtnarg 

ibS\  8  6 


/S^/^Oa 


a^o^ 


c^Ck.'^ 


TEXTS   AND'  MARGINS 


,T^y  C'  ""' 


/- 


REVISED    NEW    TESTAMp^T    f,/|AriH>ll;22 


AFFECTING 


THEOLOGICAL    DOCTRINE 


BRIEFLY   REVIEWED. 


By/ 

G.    VANCE  "^MITH,    B.A , 

■J'HROL.    ^    PHILOS.    DOCT. 


LONDON : 
37,    NORFOLK    STREET,    STRAND,    W.C 

1881. 


Note. — The  British  and  Foreign  Unitarian  Association,  in 
accordance  with  its  First  Rule,  gives  publicity  to  works  calcu- 
lated "  to  promote  Unitarian  Christianity  by  the  difiusion  of 
Biblical,  theological  and  literary  knowledge,  on  topics  connected 
with  it,"  but  does  not  hold  itself  responsible  for  every  statement, 
opinion  or  expression  of  the  writers. 


C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S. 


I'AGE. 

Introductov}- i. — iv. 

§     I.  '  Holy  Ghost '—Holy  Spirit 7 

§    2.  The  name  '  Immanuer 9 

§    3.  '  Son  of  God  '—Messiah 0 

§    4.  '  the  hell  of  fire  ' — Gehenna — Hades 10 

§    5.  '  the  evil  (7;/(? ' — The  belief  in  Satan 12 

§  6.  '  all  authority  is  given  unto  me.'  'Master' — Teacher.  .  14 
§    7.  '  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the 

Holy  Ghost' 15 

§    8.   '  only  begotten  Son.' — '  only  begotten  God.' — John  i.  18 — 

Doctrine  of  the  Logos,  its  non-Christian  origin.     .     .  17 

§    9.   '  the  only  God.' — John  v.  44 22 

§  10.  '  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am.' — John  viii.  58 24 

§  II.  'the  Church  of  God,  which  he  purchased  with  his  own 

blood.' — Acts  XX.  28 2G 

§  12.  'a  propitiation,  through  faith,  by  his  blood.'— Rom.  iii.  25  27 

§  13.  '  the  reconciliation  ' — Atonement — '  for  Christ's  sake  '  .     .  30 

§14.  '  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever.'     Rom.  ix.  5     •     .  32 

§  15.  *  in  the  form  of  God'        35 

§  16.  *  He  who  was  manifested  in  the  flesh.'  i  Tim.  iii.  16  .  .  39 
§  17.  '  our  great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."     Tit.  ii.  13;  . 

2  Pet.  i.  I 39 

§  18.  The  three  witnesses,     i  John  v.  7,  8. — i  John  v.  20.     .     .  44 

Conclusion — doctrinal  results  of  the  Revision       ....  45 

Appendix. 

Note  A.  Winer  on  Rom.  ix.  s 49 

—  B.  Winer  on  Tit.  ii.  13 49 

—  C.  The  Guardian  Newspajier  on  the  same 50 


INTRODUCTORY 


The  varied  criticism  to  which  the  revised  New  Testament 
has  been  subjected  has  gone  far  to  estabHsh  a  concUision  of 
considerable  importance, — one,  too,  which  has  been  widely 
accepted  even  by  persons  of  the  most  different  theological 
opinions.  It  has  led  to  a  very  general  recognition  of  the 
substantial  accuracy  of  the  new  text,  regarded  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  Greek  original.  A  few  instances  may  no 
doubt  be  pointed  out  in  which  this  statement  is  open  to 
question ;  but  on  the  whole,  notwithstanding  various 
inconsistencies  of  rendering,  and  some  faulty  deviations 
from  usual  English  idiom,  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  work 
of  revision  has  been  well  done,  and  that  it  places  before  the 
modern  reader  the  oldest  original  text  which  is  now  accessi- 
ble to  us  more  fully  and  literally  than  is  done  by  the 
Authorised  Version. 

This  result  was  to  be  anticipated.  The  revisers,  as  a 
body,  were  men  of  competent  learning,  and  well  acquainted 
with  their  subject ;  nor  can  they  have  had  any  motive  in 
their  work  but  to  render  their  original  faitlifully  to  the  best 
of  their  own  understanding.  This  will  probably  be  allowed 
by  every  reader  of  the  corrected  version  who  is  at  all 
competent  to  form  an  opinion  on  such  a  question. 

At  the  same  time  it  may  be  well  to  remember  that  even  a 
body  of  such  men  was  not  infallible.  Nor  is  there  any  thing 
improbable  in  the  supposition  that  they  may  have  been 
influenced  by  the  bias  of  their  own  theological  opinions. 
It  was  at  least  natural,  perhaps  it  was  inevitable,  that  they 


O  INTRODL'CrORV. 

should  have  been  so.  Whetlicr  tb.ere  be  any  traces  of  this; 
in  their  work,  we  need  not  at  present  stop  to  inquire.  The 
reader  will  no  doubt  be  able  to  make  his  own  inferences  on 
the  point,  as  he  proceeds  with  the  following  pages. 

At  all  events,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  changes  which  have 
been  introduced  in  the  revised  version  have,  in  several 
conspicuous  instances,  an  important  bearing  ui)on  theological 
doctrine,  as  usually  derived  from  the  New  Testament.  It  is 
the  design  of  the  present  Tract  to  point  out  some  of  these 
instances,  and  to  offer  a  few  remarks  in  elucidation  of  their 
theological  import.  1  need  not  add  that  I  wish  to  say  what 
I  have  to  say  Avith  every  regard  to  literary  fidelity,  and  with 
the  desire  to  present  each  case  honestly  and  truly,  as  it  is, 
so  far  as  I  can  myself  appreciate  its  character.  Without 
/^ias,  I  suppose  I  must  not  claim  to  be  ;  but  I  will  at  least 
endeavour  not  to  allow  my  own  private  opinions  to  influence 
me  unduly;  and  it  will  always  remain  with  the  reader  to- 
judge  for  himself  whether  or  not  I  have  succeeded  in  giving 
a  fairly  true  and  impartial  account  of  what  I  have  undertaken 
here  to  discuss. 

It  will  be  convenient  in  what  follows  to  take  the  passages 
to  be  noticed,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  in  the  order  in 
which  they  occur  in  the  New  Testament  books.  And  it 
will  be  understood  that  it  is  only  certain  passages  of  promi- 
nent theological  interest  that  it  is  proposed  to  notice. 


TEXTS    AND    MARGINS. 


^  I.  Matt.  i.  i8:  'Holy  Ghost;'  margin,  'Or,  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  so  througliout  this  book.' — This  margin  is  an 
acknowledgment  by  the  revisers,  repeated  in  several  books, 
to  the  effect  that  the  original  term,  rendered  'Ghost,'  is  the 
sameysox^^  which  is  also  rendered  'Spirit.'  Such  is  the 
case  in  every  instance,  without  exception."^  It  requires 
no  argument  to  show  that  one  and  the  same  rendering  of  the 
one  original  word  ought  to  have  been  adopted  throughout. 
So  obvious  a  neglect  of  uniformity  in  so  important  a  case  is 
the  more  remarkable,  because  the  revisers,  as  a  rule,  have 
been  careful,  and  profess  to  be  careful,  to  render  the  same 
original  word  by  the  same  P^nglish,  so  far  as  possible — as  for 
example  in  the  insignificant  case  of  '  straightway,'  many 
times  in  the  second  Gospel.  Why  then  have  they  not  been 
equally  particular  in  the  greater  case  of  Holy  Spirit, — one  of 
real  interest  and  importance.! 

*  In  several  X.  T.  books  the  Avoids  Holy  Ghost — or  Spirit — do  not 
occur  at  all.  In  John,  the  rendering  '  Ghost '  has  been  retained  once 
only,  viz  ,  in  xx.  23. 

t  One  of  the  revisers  has  given  us  a  reason  which,  I  must  say,  too 
clearly  suggests  the  influence  under  which  the  rendering  Holy  Ghost 
was  retained.  He  observes,  '  England  would  have  risen  up  and  pro- 
tested against  the  loss  of  that  most  holy  name.'  And  yet  'that  most 
holy  name  '  does  not  ocair  in  the  original  Scripture,  as  a  word  distinct 
from  that  which  is  rendered  Spirit  !  —See  Rev.  W.  G.  Humphry's 
Tract,  'A  Word  on  the  Revised  \'ersion,'  published  for  the  Christian 
Knowledge  Society. 

B2 


8  HOLY    SPIRIT. 

In  some  instances,  again,  the  Revision  has  not  only 
retained  the  old  expression,  but  has  gone  so  far  as  to  alter 
the  pronouns,  so  as  to  impart  a  more  distinctly  personal 
character  to  the  rendering — as  in  Rom.  viii.  i6,  '  the  Spirit 
himself,'  instead  of  the  Authorised  'itself,'  which  exactly 
represents  the  Greek;  so  in  Ephes.  iv.  30,  which  is  a  similar 
case.  In  these  places,  no  doubt  it  may  be  urged,  a  personal 
meaning  is  expressed  in  the  context ;  but  then  is  it  not 
simply  a  figurative  personality,  of  exactly  the  same  kind  as 
that  attributed  to  other  objects  of  thought,  as,  for  example, 
to  Charity  (love)  in  i  Cor.  xiii.  4,  5.  (Here,  it  must  not 
be  overlooked,  the  Revision  has  altered  the  personal  pronoun, 
in  the  opposite  sense,  so  as  to  fake  away  the  personal 
meaning,  and  injure  the  Apostle's  metaphor.)  But  indeed, 
as  probably  all  will  admit,  the  expression  Holy  Spirit 
denotes  the  Divine  Being  himself,  especially  in  His  felt  in- 
fluence upon  the  mind  of  man.  Hence,  it  is  easy  to  under- 
stand, the  Spirit  may  quite  intelligibly  be  spoken  of  under  the 
personal  conception  of  it,  while  yet  it  is  unnecessary  to  go 
to  the  length  of  the  popular  Creeds  and  attribute  to  it  a  real 
or  separate  personality  of  its  own,  making  it  in  effect  a 
distinct  and  separate  God — as  in  the  Athanasian  Creed. 
Of  this  extreme  perversion  of  the  idea  there  is  no  example 
within  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament.  Accordingly  there 
is  nowhere  in  the  Bible  to  be  found  any  instance  of  prayer 
being  offered  to  it,  or  any  ascription  of  praise  or  adora- 
tion, as  there  so  often  is  in  the  case  of  the  Almighty  Father. 

It  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the  American  revisers 
(List  of  Readings,  No.  III.)  express  their  desire  that 
instead  of  '  Holy  Gho.st,'  the  rendering  'Holy  Spirit'  should 
be  uniformly  adopted.  In  this  they  have  shewn  them- 
selves more  faithful  to  the  original  than  the  English 
Company:  inasmuch  as  the  New  Testament  has  everywhere 
been  contented  to  express  the  idea  intended  by  a  single 
word ;  while  also  the  deep  and  comprehensive  word  Spirit  is 


I.M.MAN- L'KL — SON    OF    GOD.  9 

greatly   superior   as   a  rendering   to    its    [)oor   and    almost 
obsolete  equivalent.* 

^  2.  Matt.  i.  23  :  '  they  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel ; 
which  is,  being  interpreted,  God  with  us.' — A  more  careful 
and  impartial  regard  to  the  usage  of  the  Greek  language  (as 
of  the  Hebrew  also)  would  have  rendered  these  words 
differently.  In  both  languages,  in  simple  sentences  like 
this,  the  verb  of  existence  is  constantly  unexpressed, 
although  it  is  to  be  understood.  Remembering  this  fact  we 
should  render,  *God  is  with  us;'  and  the  implication  is,  that, 
in  the  child  to  be  born,  the  promised  Christ,  God  will  be 
with  his  people  to  protect  and  save  them.  As  the  words 
stand,  they  seem  to  represent  the  coming  child  as  God. 
This  cannot  possibly  be  held  to  be  the  Evangelist's  intention, 
when  all  the  circumstances  of  the  context  are  taken  into  the 
account.  Simple  faithfulness,  therefore,  to  his  thought 
requires  a  further  revision  of  this  expression,  or  at  the  least, 
an  acknowledgment  in  the  margin  of  the  alternative  render- 
ing.— See  similar  instances,  Isaiah  viii.  lo;  Jerem.  xxiii.  6, 
xxxiii.  i6;  Ezek.  xlviii.  3^. 

>^  3.  ]\Iatt.  iv.  3: 'SonofGod.'  The  old  rendering  remains, 
and  could  not  of  course  be  changed.  But,  in  the  mouth  of 
the  devil,  who  is  here  the  speaker,  the  words  could  only 
si,!^fii/y  'the  Messiah:" — -'If  thou  art  the  Messiah.'  In  the 
synoptical  Gospels,  as  elsewhere,  the  Messiah  is  a  Son  of 
God.  He  is  also  pre-eminently  '  the  Son  of  God ' — a 
phrase  by  which  the  protection  and  love  of  God  for  his 
chosen  servant  arc  especially  denoted.!     It  does  not,  how- 

*  This  is  seen  in  tlie  fact  that  the  word  '  Ghost '  cannot  be  used  by 
itself,  as  the  original  often  is,  nor  with  any  adjective  except  one. 

t  Compare  Mark  i.  i,  which  literally  runs,  'the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  Son  of  God.'  The  latter  words  (equivalent,  as  just  said, 
to  Messiah)  are  critically  uncertain,  and  are  omitted  by  Tischendorf. 


lO  HELL    OF    FIRE. 

ever,  appear  from  these  three  Gospels  that  any  metaphysical 
meaning  was  attached  to  the  words.  The  only  instance  in 
which  the  contrary  might  be  alleged  is  in  Luke  i.  35.  Here 
the  child  to  be  born  is  said  to  be  '  Son  of  God,'  because 
it  is  born  through  the  immediate  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
This  reason  for  the  epithet  is  nowhere  else  given ;  nor 
indeed  is  the  miraculous  birth  anywhere  else  alluded  to  in 
the  New  Testament,  except  at  the  commencement  of  the 
first  and  third  Gos])els.  In  these  Gospels,  therefore,  as  in 
Mark,  'Son  of  God'  may  always  be  regarded  as  simply  a 
designation,  in  Hebraistic  phrase,  of  the  Messiah.*  This 
remark  does  not  apply  to  the  fourth  Gosi)el,  in  which  the 
metaphysical  or  Logos  conception  is  introduced,  as  shall  be 
briefly  noticed  in  its  proper  place. 

§  4.  Matt.  V.  22  :  '  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  hell  of  fire  ;' 
— margin  'Gehenna  of  fire.'  Most  probably  the  words  'of 
fire '  are  a  Hebraism,  after  the  manner  of  '  judge  of 
unrighteousness,'  rendered  'unrighteous  judge,'  Luke  xviii.  6. 
Hence  the  meaning  is,  the  fiery  or  burning  Gehenna.  This 
last  word  was  the  proper  name  of  a  locality  near  Jerusalem. 
In  the  eyes  of  the  Jews  it  was  a  place  of  abominations,  on 
account  of  the  idolatrous  rites  there  practiced  in  ancient 
times.  It  had  therefore  been  subjected  to  defilement  in 
various  ways,  and  became  in  later  times  the  receptacle  of 
refuse  and  filth  from  the  city.  To  consume  the  mass,  fires 
were  kept  burning,  and  the  valley  was  accordingly  a  place  of 
fin^  of  perpetual  fire,  ever  burning.  Hence  the  phrase 
'  Gehenna  of  fire.'  This  phrase,  as  given  in  the  margin, 
ought  clearly  to  have  stood  in  the  text.  On  what  just 
principle  is  the  proper  name  Gehenna  rendered  by  the  word 


*  Compnre  the  exclamation  of  the  centurion  (Mark  xv.  39),  '  Truly 
this  man  was  Son  of  God.'  Surely  he  intended  this  not  in  the  Nicene 
sense,  but  in  the  familiar  Hebrew  sense  of  Messiah,  in  which  he  may 
often  have  heard  it  used. 


G I:H KX X A — H  A DES.  I  I 

'  hell  ?'  It  cannot  be  shewn  that  the  fearful  ideas  connected 
with  the  latter  in  our  times  were  associated  with  Gehenna  in 
the  time  of  Christ.  The  rich  man  in  the  parable  in 
Luke  xvi.  is  not  in  Gehenna.  He  is  in  '  Hades  '  (v.  23), 
and  this  parable,  it  is  needless  to  say,  is  not  a  representation 
of  real  scenes,  but  simply  a  thing  of  the  imagination, 
•designed  to  embody  the  great  fact  of  moral  retribution.  It 
is  true,  however,  that  the  name  Gehenna  had  come  to  be 
used  in  New  Testament  times  as  a  representative  word, 
denoting  the  place  into  which  the  ungodly  were  to  be  cast 
at  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  there  to  be  burnt  up  and 
destroyed.  The  whole  conception  belongs  nevertheless  to 
the  domain  of  mythology  rather  than  to  that  of  rational 
theology.  It  embodies  for  our  time  the  idea  of  retribution 
for  sin  simply,  and  hence  it  is  altogether  gratuitous  and 
inadmissible  to  insist  upon  the  details  of  the  expression  as 
representing  the  actual  physical  character  of  the  future 
scenes  of  woe.  It  is  one  of  the  gravest  faults  of  our 
systematising  theologians  and  preachers  *  to  persist,  as  they 
do,  in  keeping  up  ideas  of  hell,  with  its  devils,  and  its  ever- 
lasting flames  and  torments,  which  have  descended  to  us 
from  the  distant  ignorant  ages  of  patristic  and  mediaeval 
superstition.  But  apart  from  these  considerations  the  revised 
rendering  '  hell  of  fire  '  is  unjustifiable,  not  only  on  account 
of  the  word  'hell,'  but  also  as  suggesting  other  hells 
unknown  to  the  New  Testament,  and  because  there  is  no 
reason  in  the  nature  of  the  case  why  the  proper  name  Cxehenna 
(meaning,  etymologically,  valley  of  Hiimojii)  should  not  have 
been  rendered  as  a  jiroper  name.  This  change  has  been 
made  in  the  case  of  the  word  Hades,  though  this   too  was 

*  See.  for  example,  the  ^[ethodist  Catechisms,  and  the  allusions  in 
various  Hymn-books  of  the  Congregationalists  and  other  bodies.  But 
the  reader  should  not  forget  Canon  Fariar's  admirable  volume  '  Eternal 
Hope,'  which  may  be  set  against  certain  publications  of  tlie  Religious 
Tract  Society,  such  as  Baxter's  Saint's  Rest. 


12  THE    EVir,    ONK. 

represented  as  'hell'  by  the  revisers  of  i6ii~\vho,  like  all 
the  theologians  of  their  time,  were  eager  believers  in  hell 
fire,  in  devils,  and  in  witchcraft.  Consistency  required  that 
the  two  proper  names  should  be  similarly  treated,  and  they 
would  no  doubt  have  been  so,  but  for  long-established  and 
invincible  prepossessions.  The  reader  should  compare 
2  Kings  xvi.  3,  xxiii.  10,  13,  14,  and  also  some  parallel 
places  in  Chronicles  and  other  Old  Testament  books. 

5^  5.  Matt.  vi.  13:  'Deliver  us  from  the  evil  a;^e.'  The 
introduction  of  Satan  into  the  Lord's  Prayer,  however 
unnecessary  on  exegetical  grounds,"^  and  however  offensive 
to  the  devout  feeling  of  very  many  readers,  cannot  be  said 
to  affect  theological  doctrine  one  way  or  other.  The  exist- 
ence of  Satan  is  abundantly  recognised  elsewhere  in  the 
words  of  Christ,  and  it  was  no  doubt  admitted  by  him,  as 
an  element  derived  through  his  education  from  the  popular 
belief  of  his  day,  as  it  is  well  known  to  have  been  received 
by  his  countrymen  long  before  Christ  was  born.  Those  who 
think  that  the  Christian  of  modern  times  should  hold  the 
same  belief  because  He  did  so,  should  in  consistency  ask 
us  to  recognise  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  as  well  as  the  continued 
obligation    of  circumcision  and   of  worship    by   sacrifices. 


*  That  the  words  rendered  '  the  evil  one  *  might  grammatically  be 
neuter,  and  denote  the  abstract  and  impersonal  'evil,'  is  admitted  on 
all  sides  and  cannot  be  denied.  The  neuter  form  occurs  in  Luke  vi. 
35,  Rom.  xii.  g.  The  expression  was  familiar  to  Jewish  readers  of 
Greek — see  i  Mac.  i.  15.  The  character  of  the  prayer  again,  and  the 
parallelisms  of  the  context,  (debts,  temptation,  trespasses,)  evidently 
favour  the  non-personal  meaning.  But  then  the  Greek  Fathers  take 
the  M'ords  in  the  personal  sense,  and  this  is  the  great  reason  for  the 
revised  rendering — a  very  insufficient  reason,  it  must  be  said,  when 
the  credulous  and  superstitious  character  of  these  writers  is  taken  into 
the  account.  It  may  be  added  that  the  *  evil '  or  '  evil  one '  is  not 
determined  one  way  or  the  other  by  either  the  verb  or  the  preposition 
here  used  with  it — as  some  have  supposed. 


THE    BELIEF    IN    SATAN.  I3 

There  can  he  no  reasonable  doubt  that  these  were  equally 
accepted  by  Christ,  in  accordance  with  his  own  words,  that 
he  came  not  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets  but  to  fulfil. 
He  is  also  admitted  by  all  to  have  been  a  man  of  ordinary 
Hebrew  training — whatever  else  beyond  this  he  may  have 
been— and  to  have  conformed,  like  other  Hebrews  of  his 
time,  to  the  laws  and  institutions  of  his  people. 

But,  while  this  is  true,  the  better  knowledge  which  has 
been  given  to  our  day  renders  it  impossible  to  assent  to  the 
ancient  belief  in  an  all  but  omnipotent  devil.  This  is 
surely  one  of  the  great  points  on  which  men  are  called 
upon  to  admit  into  their  minds  the  clearer  light  which,  by 
j)rovidential  guiding,  modern  Science  has  given  to  the  world. 
This  should  teach  us  that  what  we  are  accustomed  to  call 
the  Evils  of  life  and  nature,  mysterious  and  sorrowful  as 
they  often  are,  must,  in  the  last  resort,  be  ascribed  to  the 
Supreme  Will  itself,  and  are  not  to  be  attributed  to  the 
activity  of  a  malignant  Satan,  the  eternal  enemy  alike  of 
(iod  and  man. 

It  was  clearly  a  mistake,  therefore,  so  gratuitously  to 
alter  the  words  under  notice,  as  if  it  were  sought  to  diffuse 
and  strengthen  the  belief  in  diabolical  agency,  by  intro- 
ducing the  acknowledgment  of  it  into  this  prayer,  otherwise 
so  comprehensive  and  beautiful.  It  may  be  hoped,  never- 
theless, that  the  increasing  intelligence  and  good  sense  of 
Christian  people  will  more  and  more  disapprove  and  reject 
the  doctrine  in  question,  even  when  thus  presented  to  them 
— a  doctrine,  as  it  is,  the  practical  influence  of  which  can 
be  in  no  way  favourable  to  the  spiritual  well-being  of  those 
who  really  hold  it,  but  rather  the  contrary. 


1 4  AUJ  HOKITY TEACHER. 

§  6.  Matt,  xxviii.  1 8 :  '  Jesus  ....  spake  unto  them 
saying,  All  authority  hath  been  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and 
on  earth.' — The  change  here  from  'power'  to  autJwrity  is 
significant.  The  reader  should  compare  Matt.  ix.  6,  x.  i, 
Mark  ii.  lo,  iii.  15.  The  change  has  been  made  in  some 
cases,  but  not  in  others,  and  with  the  misleading  result, 
that  Christ  is  represented  as  having /<97i''^7',  the  disciples  as 
having  'authority.'  The  original  word  is  the  same  every- 
where; as  indeed  is  acknowledged  by  the  margin.  But 
why,  it  must  be  asked,  was  not  this  word,  in  itself  unobjec- 
tionable, placed  in  the  text?  The  original  denotes  a 
permitted  or  delegated  power,  something  that  it  was  lawful 
to  exercise  in  accordance  with  some  superior  will.  Such 
authority  is  attributed  to  Jesus  in  common  with  his  dis- 
ciples, and  the  fact  ought  not  to  be  disguised  by  placing 
the  right  and  literal  translation  in  the  margin,  the  less  right 
and  less  literal  in  the  text,  where  it  will  be  read,  or  heard 
read,  by  multitudes  who  will  never  hear  or  see  the  margin, 
or  perhaps  attend  to  it  if  they  do. 

Similar  remarks  may  be  made  respecting  the  familiar 
word  '  Master '  which  is  so  often  applied  to  Jesus  in  all 
the  Gospels,  the  alternative  (and  correct)  rendering 
'  Teacher '  being  placed  in  the  margin.  See  Matt.  viii.  1 9, 
and  numerous  passages  besides.  To  teach  the  people  was 
evidently  a  chief  function  of  the  Messiah's  office,  as  con- 
ceived by  the  Evangelists  and  probably  by  Jesus  himself, 
Accordingly,  he  is  frequently  spoken  of  as  engaged  in  this 
work,  and  is  constantly  called  '  the  teacher,'  and  addressed 
as  'Teacher.'  The  word  Master  on  the  contrary  is  not 
applied  to  him,  except  in  the  rare  instance  or  two  of  the 
compound  term  rendered  'master  of  the  house.'  The  pro- 
per Greek  word  for  master,  in  the  sense  of  power  and 
ownership,  Jesus  never  applies  to  himself*     It  is  used  of 

*  The  word  so  constantly  rendered  '  Lord '  might  have  been  cor- 
rectly translated  by  ^Master,  in  this  sense. 


INTO    THK    NAMK.  1 5 

him  only  in   two   instances,  and  by  the  late  and   unknown 
writers  of  2  Peter  and  Jude. 

These  focts  are  not  without  their  interest,  as  indicating 
•the  character  under  which  Jesus  and  his  work  were  regarded 
by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  A\'e  know  that  he 
was  familiarly  spoken  of  by  the  peoi)le  as  'the  i)rophet  Jesus 
from  Nazareth,'  see  Matt.  xxi.  1 1.  Such  facts  ought  not  to 
have  been  concealed  under  the  translation  'master,'  to  which 
it  is  probable  that  few  ordinary  English  readers  will  attach 
the  meaning  of  Teacher,  even  though  the  former  word  is 
familiar  enough  in  certain  compounds  (as  school-master)  in 
the  sense  of  teacher. 


§  7.  Matt,  xxviii.  19:  'baptizing  them  into  the  name  of 
the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.' — The 
word  into  here  takes  the  place  of  'in,'  without  any  marginal 
note,  and  materially  assists  the  interpretation.  It  denotes 
the  transition  experienced  by  the  convert  to  Christianity 
from  one  form  of  belief  and  confession  to  another.  A  Jew 
or  a  Gentile,  who  was  brought  to  recognise  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
as  the  expected  Christ,  underwent  the  change  referred  to, 
from  unbelief  or  denial  to  positive  assent  and  discipleship. 
This  '  conversion '  *  the  '  eleven  disciples  '  are  told  to  mark 
and  ratify  by  the  ceremony  of  baptism — an  ancient  and 
familiar  rite  in  those  days.  In  i  Cor.  x.  2,  Paul  speaks 
figuratively  of  his  people  as  having  been  '  baptized  into 
Moses  ' — an  expression  which  the  Revision  for  some  reason 
has  altered,  by  rendering  '  unto  '  instead  of  into.  By  this 
statement  the  Apostle  evidently  meant  to  signify  that  the 
people  adopted  and  professed  the  religion  given  to  them  by 
Moses;  in  connection  with  which  Moses  held  so  conspicuous 
a  place   as  leader  and  legislator.     Receiving  and  following 


*  Such  is  the  usual  import  of  the  word  'convert,'  and  its  cognates 
as  used  in  the  N.  T. — though  not  in  the  [Methodist  and  other  theo- 
logical vocabuhiries  :  see  Acts  xv.  3. 


1 6  THE    BAPTISMAL    FORMULA. 

him,  the  LsraeUtes  were  '  baptized  into  Moses.'  Similarly 
with  Christian  converts — they  received  the  religion  in  which 
God  is  so  specially  made  known  under  the  sacred  name  of 
'Father,'  in  which  too  the  acknowledgment  of  'the  Son,* 
the  Messiah,  was  an  essential  element— for  a  man  could  not 
be  a  Christian  disciple  without  acknowledging  Christ — and 
which  again,  according  to  the  conception  of  the  primitive 
age,  was  illustrated  and  confirmed  to  the  disciple  by  the  gift 
of  'the  Holy  Spirit'  Of  this  last  particular  many  examples 
occur  in  the  Book  of  Acts:  See  ii.  4,  iv.  31,  and  compare 
xix.  2,  seq. 

The  evangelist's  words  are  usually  regarded  as  an  allusion 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  It  would  be  very  reasonable 
so  to  understand  them,  if  that  doctrine  were  anywhere  else 
to  be  found  distinctly  taught,  as  a  doctrine  of  the  new  reli- 
gion. But  there  is  no  instance  in  which  it  is  so,'"  and  it  is 
incredible  that  the  Teacher,  at  the  very  moment  of  his 
departure  from  the  earth,  in  the  last  words  which  he 
addressed  to  his  disciples,  should  now  suddenly  speak  to 
them  in  these  terms  of  a  mysterious  doctrine,  so  inconsistent 
with  their  own  ancient  monotheistic  faith,  and  for  which  he 
had  not  in  any  way  prepared  their  minds.  It  cannot  have 
been  the  intention  of  the  evangelist  to  leave  his  readers  with 
such  an  impression.  For  it  is  remarkable  that  all  the  four 
Gospels  are  equally  destitute  of  traces  of  this  great  ecclesi- 
astical doctrine,  which  indeed  is  known  historically  to  have 
been  the  growth  of  a  long  subsequent  age.  Of  this  state- 
ment the  reader  who  will  only  take  the  trouble  to  examine 
the  Gospels  for  himself  will  find  abundant  evidence — 
abundant  evidence,  that  is  to  say,  in  the  plain  fact  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  nowhere  in  the  Gospels  to  be  seen,. 


*  The  only  other  text  believed  and  probably  intended  to  express  the 
doctrine,  i  John  v.  7,  has  been  removed  as  spurious  by  the  re\isers. 
See  infra,  §  18. 


ONLY    BEGOTTEN    GOD.  1 7 

either  expressly  stated  or  even  obscurely  alluded  to.     I'his 
is  equally  true  of  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament."^ 


^  8.  John  i.  i8:  'No  man  hath  seen  God  at  anytime; 
the  only  begotten  Son,  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father 
he  hath  declared  ///;//.'  Here,  the  margin  informs  us  that 
'  many  very  ancient  authorities  read  God  only  begotte7i^'  for 
'  only  begotten  Son.'  It  maybe  conjectured  that  a  regard 
for  euphony,  or  some  even  stronger  motive,  suggested  the 
form  of  translation  thus  given  in  the  margin.  But,  as  in  the 
original  the  adjective  precedes  the  noun,  the  more  exact 
rendering  is  '  an  only  begotten  God  ;' — just  as  we  say  in 
English  a  good  ifian,  not  '  a  man  good.' 

An  only  begotten  God  ! — Such  is  the  incongruous  idea  to 
which  this  margin  would  lead  those  who  are  able  to  close 
the  eyes  of  their  minds  so  far  as  to  follow  its  guidance.  It 
is  almost  a  pity  that  the  words  were  not  taken  into  the  text 
— a  result  from  which,  considering  the  state  of  the  evidence, 
there  could  have  been  only  a  narrow  escape.!  Their  inser 
tion  in  the  English  Bible  might,  however,  have  proved  a 
greater  blow  than  the  popular  or  orthodox  theology  of  our 
day  would  have  been  well  able  to  bear ! 

A  full  discussion  of  this  margin  would  be  equivalent  to  a 
discussion  of  the  Logos  doctrine  in  which  the  expression 
has  its  origin,  and  for  this,  in  the  present  connection,  space 

*  2  Cor.  xii.  12  has  been  appealed  to  as  an  expression  of  the  three- 
fold personalit}'.  But  a  reasonable  interpretation  of  the  words  is 
inconsistent  with  such  a  conclusion.  There  is  evidently  a  distinction 
made  in  the  verse  between  God  and  the  other  subjects  named  :  '  The 
grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  GOD,  and  the  com- 
munion (participation)  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;'  the  last  clause,  doubtless, 
here,  as  so  often  in  the  Acts,  denoting  those  divine  gifts  of  which  the 
Christian  might  partake,  as  before  noticed  (§  i.) 

t  The  words  have  been  adopted  in  the  new  Greek  text  edited  by 
Messrs.  Westcott  and  Hort. 


t8  DOCIRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS    OR    WORD. 

is  wanting.  A  few  facts  however  belonging  to  the  subject, 
must  be  given. 

The  original  adjective  rendered  'only-begotten,"  in  its 
simple  or  natural  sense,  denotes  an  only  child,  also  one  that 
is  dearly  beloved,  as  an  only  child.  In  this  sense  it  is  found 
in  Luke  three  times,  and  it  is  applied  also  to  Isaac. "^ 
Except  in  these  cases,  it  occurs  only  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
and  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  in  reference  to  the  Logos 
(John  i.  14,  18),  or  in  connection  with  Christ  (John 
iii.  16,  18).  In  the  later  and  metaphysical  sense  of 
the  term  it  denoted  the  relation  of  the  Logos  to  God  ;  in 
other  words,  it  was  expressive  of  the  intimate  and  unique 
connection  between  the  Logos  as  Son  and  the  Divine  Father. 
In  this  sense  the  word  is  found  in  the  Nicene  Creed:  'only 
begotten  of  the  Father;'  with  which  should  be  compared 
the  words,  'God  of  [out  of]  Ciod;'  'begotten  not  made, 
being  of  one  substance  with  the  Father.'  The  word  occurs, 
as  just  noted,  four  times  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  but  whether 
intended  in  this  sense  exactly  may  be  a  question.  If  so, 
the  fact  is  indicative  of  the  Alexandrine  origin  of  that 
Gospel,  as  well  as  of  its  late  composition,  as  compared  with 
the  other  three. 

The  word  God,  in  the  reading  '  only  begotten  God,'  is 
rejected  by  Tischendorf,  who  adopts  the  common  reading, 
giving  at  the  same  time  an  account  of  the  evidence.  AVhat 
appears  to  have  weighed  greatly  with  this  eminent  authority 
in  so  doing,  is  the  fact  of  the  increasing  tendency,  in  the 
early  centuries,  to  apply  the  epithet  '  Ciod '  to  Jesus 
personally,  as  being  the  Logos  incarnate  (John  i.  14).  This 
tendency  attained  its  climax  and  natural  result  at  the 
Nicene  Council  (a.d.  325)  and  in  the  famous  Creed  there 
formulated  by  men  who,  as  everybody  knows,  were 
extremely  little  qualified  for  the  work    of  creed-making  for 


Luke  vii.  12,  viii.  42,  ix.  38;   Heb.  xi.  17. 


SUSPICIOUS    READINGS.  I  9 

future  generations.  This  was  the  same  century  in  which 
the  oldest  existing  manuscripts,  Aleph  and  B,  were  written; 
and  it  may  have  been  simply  in  accordance  with  the 
prevailing  tendency  of  their  time  that  the  copiers  of  those 
manuscripts  thought  themselves  justified  in  writing  OUs, 
God,  instead  of  vlos,  Son.  There  is  another  instance  of 
the  same  alteration  to  9eos  in  Aleph,  which  is  held  to  be 
the  oldest  of  all  the  New  Testament  manuscripts.  It  occurs 
in  Luke  viii.  40,  where  the  scribe  has  written  '  they  were  all 
waiting  for  God,'  instead  of  'waiting  for  him.'  This 
reading  stands  alone,  and  has  been  little  noticed  by  the 
critics.  There  it  is  in  Aleph  nevertheless,  and  as  it  cannot 
have  been  accidental,  it  shows  how  ready  the  manuscript 
copiers  were  to  follow  the  orthodox  feeling  of  their  day. 
The  ancient  Fathers  who  cite  John  i.  18,  or  allude  to  the 
expression,  are  greatly  divided  between  the  two  readings,  so 
that  it  is  a  matter  of  no  slight  difficulty  to  decide  by  their 
evidence  which  of  the  two  has  the  preponderance  of  critical 
weight  on  its  side.  In  all  probability  manuscripts  were 
extant  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  perhaps  earlier,"^ 
containing  both  readings;  and  it  was  natural  that  copiers 
should  follow  the  one  or  the  other,  according  as  their 
theological  zeal  dictated.  A  similar  cause  would  account 
for  other  instances  in  which  the  term  '  God '  may  have 
been  surreptitiously  introduced  into  the  text — as  shall  be 
noticed  under  the  proper  heads. 

To  speak  of  'an  only  begotten  God,  who  is  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father,'  was  altogether  in  keeping  with  the  character 
of  the  fourth  Gospel ;  and  therefore  there  is  nothing  at  all 
unlikely  in  the  supposition  that  this  may  be  the  true  original 
reading  of  this  verse.     Let  it  be  observed,  however,  that  the 

*  Dr.  Scrivener  has  observed,  *It  is  no  less  true  to  fact  than 
paradoxical  in  sound,  that  the  worst  corruptions  to  which  the  N.  T.  has 
ever  been  subjected,  originated  within  a  hundred  years  after  it  was 
composed.' — Introduction  to  N.  T.  Criticism,  2nd  Ed.,  p.  452. 


20  ORIGIN    OF   THE    LOGOS    DOCTRINE 

conception  of  the  A\'ord  or  Logos,  introduced  in  the  first 
verse  of  this  Clospel,  ivas  not  in  its  origin  a  Christian  con- 
ception. It  is  found  fully  developed  in  Philo  Judaeus,  of 
Alexandria,  who  lived  and  died  long  before  the  composition 
of  this  (rospel.  This  eminent  Jewish  writer  speaks 
repeatedly  of  the  Logos,  and  says  respecting  it  all  that  is 
said  by  the  Evangelist,  with  much  besides.  Lie  does  not, 
however,  say  that  it  was  'made  flesh'  in  Jesus — a  statement 
which  of  course  Philo,  as  a  Jew  and  a  non-believer,  could 
not  have  made. 

Being  then  thus  familiarly  known  in  philosophy  and 
literature  long  before  Christ  or  the  Christian  Gospel  was 
heard  of,  the  conception  of  the  Logos  in  its  most  general 
sense  expressed  and  denoted  the  outward  manifestations  of 
the  One,  unseen,  incomprehensible  Deity,  in  the  creation  of 
the  world,  and  in  his  communications  with  man.  The 
conception  was  to  the  Greek  or  Hellenistic  mind  in  some 
respects  what  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  to  a  Jew — 
denoting,  not  indeed  Jehovah  himself,  whose  very  name 
might  not  be  uttered  by  human  lips,  but  yet  the  same 
hidden  and  unapproachable  Divine  Spirit  in  his  outward 
revelation  of  himself.  A  great  authority.  Dr.  Liddon,  has 
spoken  of  the  Logos  in  terms  which,  in  their  own  subtlety  or 
obscurity,  do  not  much  elucidate  the  subject  for  his 
readers.*  He  calls  it  'the  Thought  of  God,'  and  expressly 
warns  his  readers  not  to  conceive  of  it  as  '  an  independent 
being,  existing  externally  to  the  One  God.'  All  the  time, 
therefore,  though  constantly  conceived  and  spoken  of  under 
the  personal  conception,  as  a  being  distinct  from  God  and 
termed,  even  by  Philo,  a  '  second  God,'  yet,  nevertheless,  it 
was  simply  the  Infinite  himself,  or  his  Energy,  acting  upon 
the  world  according    to  the  purposes  of  His  own  divine 

*  '  The  Logos  is  the  Thought  of  God,  not  intermittent  and  precarious 
like  human  thought,  but  subsisting  with  the  intensity  of  a  personal 
form.'— Bampton  Lectures,  p.  228  (ed.  1868). 


IN    PHILOSOPHICAL    SPECULATION.  21 

thought.  This  Logos,  then,  according  to  later  Christian 
writers,  became  flesh  in  Christ,  which  was  probably,  at  first, 
much  the  same  thing  as  saying  that  God,  whom,  in  Himself, 
no  man  hath  seen  at  any  time,  revealed  Himself  to  the 
world  in  him  that  'declared  him.'  God  revealed  in  Christ, 
and  through  Christ,  is  a  prominent  idea  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. But  it  does  not  follow  that  Jesus  was  personally 
God,  or  was  intended  to  be  so  represented;  any  more  than 
it  follows  that  a  Christian  convert  was  conceived  to  be  God, 
because  the  'Holy  Spirit'  is  said  to  have  been  given  to  him, 
or  to  have  been  in  him. 

The  most  important  thing  to  remember  is  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  AVord  was  not  a  product  of  Hebrew  theology 
or  of  Christianity,  but  of  Greek  philosophy  ;  and  so,  if  this 
doctrine  be  the  most  essential  and  characteristic  element  of 
the  Christian  revelation,  as  some  would  tell  us,  it  follows 
that  we  are  indebted  for  the  '  heart  and  essence '  of  the 
Gospel,  not  to  Christ  or  the  Apostles,  but  to  Greek  specula- 
tion. Except  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  in  the  kindred 
writing  called  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  nothing  is  said  in 
the  New  Testament  about  the  Logos  being  incarnate  in 
Jesus,  although  the  same  conception  is  very  probably  at  the 
basis  of  the  introductory  verses  of  Colossians,  Ephesians, 
and  Hebrews — of  the  last  in  particular.  It  is  nowhere, 
however,  to  be  seen  in  the  three  Synoptics,  which  are  with- 
out doubt  the  simplest  and  earliest  historical  records  of  the 
ministry  of  Christ  now  accessible  to  us. 

The  same  conception  accounts  for  many  expressions 
which  are  peculiar  to  the  fourth  Gospel.  Its  occurrence 
in  this  Gospel,  elaborated  as  it  is  and  accompanied  with 
discourses  and  other  matter  evidently  composed  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Logos  idea,  seems  to  afford  the  strongest 
reason  for  thinking  that  the  Gospel  cannot  have  come  from 
the  pen  of  an  eye-witness  of  the  life  of  Christ  as 
that    life    is   related   in    the    other   Gospels.       It    should 


2  2  THE    ONLY    TRUE    GOD 

rather  ho  regarded  as  the  composition  of  a  writer  whose 
mind  was  deeply  imbued  with  the  Logos  ])hilosophy  in  its 
more  advanced  form ;  and  this  writer,  it  would  appear, 
•even  felt  himself  at  liberty  to  compose  the  discourses  and 
prayers  which  he  attributes  to  the  subject  of  his  narrative  in 
accordance  with,  and  in  subordination  to,  the  cliaracteristic 
conception  of  that  philosophy. 

Many  persons,  especially  those  who  are  committed  to  the 
Nicene  theology,  will  no  doubt  reject  and  resent  this  account 
of  the  subject.  Some  critics  may  be  expected  to  report  to 
their  readers  the  conclusion  just  stated,  and  to  denounce  it 
as  a  species  of  profanity,  without  taking  the  trouble  to  give 
the  reasons  by  which  it  is  justified.  It  would  be  more  to 
the  purpose  if  such  persons  would  examine  what  has  just 
been  said,  and  shew  by  reasonable  evidence,  if  they  can, 
that  it  is  untenable  ;  especially  if  they  would  explain  and 
account  for  the  remarkable  fact,  which  is  undeniable,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Word  is  so  distinctly  traceable,  not  to 
Christian  sources,  but  to  ancient  Cxcntile  philosophy. 

^  9.  John  v.  44  :  '  the  glory  that  conietJi  from  the  only 
God  '■ — This  stands  instead  of  the  Authorised  '  from  God 
nlone,' — which  was  an  extraordinary  mistranslation  of  the 
Greek.  The  words  should  be  read  in  connection  with 
John  xvii.  3,  which,  slightly  altered  from  the  older  form, 
runs  thus  : — '  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  know 
thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  him  whom  thou  didst  send, 
even  Jesus  Christ.'  The  two  expressions,  'the  only  God,' 
'  the  only  true  God,'  well  shew^  that  the  writer  of  this  (lospel 
(probably  a  Jewish  Christian,  of  the  Philo  school  of 
thought),  although  he  had  so  entirely  adopted  the  Logos 
i'onception,  yet  retained  a  firm  hold  of  his  ancient  mono- 
theistic faith.  It  follows,  that  he  could  have  no  real 
intention  of  representing  Jesus  Christ  as  ( iod,  equal  to  the 
Father,    and    consequendy   no   idea   of    the    later   Church 


REVEALED    BY    HIS    LOCCS.  23 

doctrine  of  the  'I'rinity.  The  Father,  in  the  Evangelist's 
view,  was  still  '  the  only  God,'  revealed,  indeed,  by  His 
Logos  conceived  as  coming  forth  from  him  in  Jesus,  and 
manifesting  him  to  the  world,  but  not  regarded  as  making 
Jesus  Christ  identical  with  Him  or  His  equal.  In  one 
instance,  it  is  true,  Jesus  is  represented  as  saying,  '  I  and 
"the  Father  are  one ;'  in  which  we  have  the  conception 
virtually  repeated  that  the  Fogos  was  with  God  and  was  God 
- — as,  according  to  Dr.  Lid  don's  exposition,  it  was  the  very 
*  Thought  of  Cxod  '  itself  But  if  so,  we  have  elsewhere  the 
'express  words,  also  attributed  to  Jesus,  '  the  Father  is 
greater  than  I  ;'  and  again  the  words  of  the  risen  Jesus,  '  I 
.ascend  unto  my  Father  and  your  Father,  and  my  God  and 
your  God.'  Such  words  shew  us  that  the  Evangelist  could 
have  had  no  real  idea  of  an  equality  of  persons,  or  of 
the  man  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  being  God  upon  earth 
•disguised  in  a  human  form,  just  as  the  Father  was  God  in 
heaven,  unseen  and  inaccessible  to  man,  revealed  only  by 
an  '  only  begotten  God,'  who  had  '  come  down  from  heaven,' 
and  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 
Of  conceptions  so  gross  as  these  there  is  no  trace  in  this 
fourth  Gospel,  which  nowhere  mentions  the  miraculous  con- 
ception. Nevertheless  it  may  be  true,  that  the  author's  ideas 
went  so  far  at  times  as  to  regard  the  Logos  incarnate  as 
an  actual  divine  existence,  distinct  and  separate  from  God. 
The  natural  development  of  the  Logos  idea,  tended  to  this 
— although  it  may  still  be  a  question  whether  this  Evangelist 
consistently  held  the  doctrine  in  the  dualistic  sense  of  later 
times.  Dr.  Liddon  observes  of  Philo  that  he  speaks  of  the 
Logos  sometimes  as  personal  and  sometimes  as  non-personal, 
sometimes  as  a  '  second  God '  and  sometimes  as  merely  a 
power  or  manifestation  of  God,  in  a  way  to  '  convince  any 
unprejudiced  reader  that  Philo  did  not  know  his  own  mind.' 
This  being  the  case,  is  it  not  probable  that  we  have  some- 
thing   of    the    same    kind    of    indecision    in    the    fourth 


24  AX    IMPORTANT    ADMISSIOX. 

Evangelist? — that  we  have  in  him  too  something  of  the  same 
ebb  and  flow  of  thought  natural  to  a  mind  occupied  with  an 
obscure  speculative  subject  such  as  this  ? 

If  such  be  the  case,  it  will  be  useless  to  attempt  further  to 
harmonise  apparently  conflicting  statements  of  this  Evan- 
gelist. Still,  one  very  important  point  should  not  be  for- 
gotten. It  is  a  point  to  which  Dr.  Liddon  expressly  invites 
attention,  when  he  remarks  of  the  Word  that  it  was  7iot '  an 
independent  being,  existing  externally  to  the  one  God  ;'  and 
Avhen  he  tells  us  that  so  to  conceive  if  it  'would  be  an  error 
at  issue  with  the  first  truth  of  monotheism.'  This  admission 
is  as  weighty  as  it  is  just.  But  then  it  inevitably  provokes 
the  suggestion,  that  neither  ought  we  to  speak  of  the  Word  'as 
an  independent  being,'  possessed  of  a  separate  personal 
existence.  And  if  it  reminds  us  that  we  ought  carefully  to 
avoid  thinking  of  the  Word  under  this  polytheistic  character, 
does  it  not  tell  us  with  equal  emphasis,  that  we  must  not 
invoke  it  in  prayers  and  hymns  exactly  as  if  it  were  '  an  inde- 
pendent being  existing  externally  to  the  One  God  ?  But 
nevertheless,  is  not  this  exactly  what  is  done  by  that  great 
national  Church  of  which  Dr.  Liddon  is  so  conspicuous  a 
member  ?.  * 


^  lo.  John  viii.,  58:  'Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
Before  Abraham  was,  I  am.' — The  translation  here  remains 
as  it  was,  with  the  margin  on  the  word  '  was,'  '  Gr.  was  bom.' 
There  are  excellent  reasons  for  holding  that  the  rendering 
accepted  by  the  Revision  gives  an  inadequate  expression  of 
the  sense  intended  by  the  Evangelist. 

The  phrase  '  I  am '  as  here  used,  occurs  repeatedly  in  the 
sense  '  I  am  //^,'  that  is,  I  am  the  Messiah.  Thus  to  the 
woman  of  Samaria,  Jesus  declares,  '  I  that  speak  unto  thee 


*  See  the  Anglican  Prayer  Book,    and  also  H)mns  Ancient   and 
Modern,  passim. 


BEFORE    ABRAHAM    WAS,    1    AM.  25 

am,"'  tliat  is  (as  the  context  shows),  '  I  am  Jie^  tlic  Christ. 
So  in  John  viii.  24,  28,  xiii.  19.  In  such  expressions  the 
speaker  asserts  his  Messiahship,  and  this  is  recognised  in 
these  instances  by  the  revisers,  who  have  retained,  in  each, 
the  interpreting  word  //^,  to  complete  the  sense.  So  it  is 
also  in  Mark  xiii.  6,  '  Many  shall  come  in  my  name,  saying, 
'  I  am  he.''  The  verse  under  notice  is  part  of  a  passage  in 
which  Jesus  is  vindicating  his  Messianic  character  (John 
viii.  52,  59)  against  persons  who  disbelieved  and  opposed ; 
and  he  affirms  in  the  strongest  language  that  he  existed  and 
was  the  Messiah  appointed  in  the  divine  counsels,  even 
before  Abraham  was  born — 'Before  Abraham  was,  'I  am//^.' 
A  different  side  of  the  same  thought  is  expressed  in  the 
prayer,  in  John  xvii.  5,  '  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee 
before  the  world  was.'  The  Logos  in  Jesus,  as  before  stated 
(§  §  S,  9),  which  was  now  speaking  in  him,  and  which  was  in 
the  beginning  with  God,  could  evidently  sa)-,  '  Before 
Abraham  was,  I  am  he''^  The  phrase  thus  rests  upon  the 
primary  conception  of  the  Gospel. 

The  explanation  of  the  words  under  notice  by  a  reference 
to  Exod.  iii.  14,  is  wholly  fallacious.  Here  we  read  in 
the  English  Bible,  '  I  am  what  I  am,'  and  '  I  am  hath  sent 
me  unto  you.'  But,  in  reality,  the  words  in  the  Hebrew  are 
in  the  Future  tense,  'I  will  be';  and  there  is  no  reason  in 
the  nature  of  the  case,  why  they  should  be  otherwise 
rendered,  whatever  the  intended  meaning  may  be.  f  They 
were  thus  understood  by  the  ancient  Jewish-Greek  translators 

*  There  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  same  idea  of  pre-existenee  in 
John  vi.  38,  62.  The  words  of  John  iii.  13,  "  the  Son  of  man  which  is  in 
heaven,"  may  be  a  parenthetical  addition  of  the  Evangelist,  as  in  iv.  2, 
8,  and  various  similar  cases.  But  'which  is  in  heaven'  is  omitted  by 
many  ancient  authorities. 

+  It  may  be  the  future  faithfulness  of  Jehovah  to  his  promise  of 
deliverance  (Exod.  iii.,  12);  or  his  future  presence  with  his  people 
for  their  protection. 


26  ACTS    XX.     28. 

Aquila  and  Theodotian,  who  are  both  of  them  remarkable 
for  the  Hteral  character  of  their  renderings.  The  Oriental 
versions  naturally  follow  the  Hebrew  tense  form,  while 
AVestern  translators,  with  some  notable  exceptions  (Luther) 
have  mostly  followed  the  Septuagint  and  the  Vulgate,  neither 
of  which  is  any  conclusive  authority  on  the  rendering  of 
Hebrew  tenses.  Thus  the  explanation  of  the  words  of  John 
viii.  58,  to  the  effect  that  Christ  intended  to  refer  to  the 
'  I  am  '  of  Exodus  is  inadmissible.  It  follows  that  he  is 
not  here  represented  by  the  Evangelist  as  arrogating  to  him- 
self the  title  of  the  self-existent  Jehovah.  The  wonder  is 
that  such  an  understanding  of  his  words  should  have  found 
favour  with  any  careful  expositor. 

^  II.  Acts  XX.  28:  'The  Church  of  God,  which  he 
purchased  with  his  own  blood.' — The  margin  informs  us 
that  'many  ancient  authorities  read  tJie  Lord'  instead  of 
'God.'  The  two  most  ancient  manuscripts  read  'God'; 
but  others  of  importance,  including  the  Alexandrine,  have 
Lord. 

As  in  the  case  of  John  i.  18,  it  is  probable  that  both 
forms  existed  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  fourth  century,  and 
that  the  copiers  felt  themselves  at  liberty  to  follow  either. 
The  '  blood '  of  '  God  '  is  an  expression  which  was  no  doubt 
acceptable,  if  not  conceivable,  to  some  early  Church  Fathers, 
and  it  is  in  evident  harmony  with  the  theology  of  the  Nicene 
Creed.  It  is  more  than  probable  that  the  higher  feeling 
of  the  nineteenth  century  will  increasingly  revolt  against 
it.  If,  too,  it  should  appear,  as  we  shall  see  it  does,  that  St. 
Paul  in  his  extant  Epistles  has  nowhere  spoken  of  Jesus  as 
'  (iod,'  even  in  the  subordinate  or  Logos  sense,  it  is  alto- 
gether unlikely  that  he  should  have  done  so  in  his  speech  in 
Acts  XX.  to  the  elders  at  Ephesus.  The  reading  accepted 
by  the  revisers  may  therefore  be  dismissed  as  a  mere  product 
of  the  same  period  of  prolific  theological  growth  and  transi- 


FAITH    IN    HIS    BLOOD.  27 

tion  to  whicli  we  owe  various  other  corruptions  of  the 
Christian  books — a  conclusion  which  should  surely  be  a 
reUef  to  the  reverent  feeling  of  all  thoughtful  Christian 
persons.  Any  doubt  there  may  be  as  to  the  text  has  been 
settled  by  the  revisers  in  accordance,  no  doubt,  with  the 
critical  evidence.  But  that  the  question  of  reading  is  by  no 
means  certain,  may  be  seen  by  the  fact  that  Lachmann, 
Tregelles,  and  Tischendorf,  the  most  eminent  of  modern 
editors  of  the  (ireek  Testament,  preferred  the  reading 
'  Lord.'  It  was  natural  perhaps,  that  the  revisers  should 
decline  to  follow  them,  seeing  that  there  is  really  a  good 
shew  of  evidence  for  the  text  they  have  adopted.  But,  as 
before  said,  if  the  general  analogy  of  the  Pauline  Epistles 
had  been  properly  attended  to,  the  received  reading  could 
not  have  been  followed. 

^12.  Rom.  iii.  25:  'Jesus  Christ,  whom  God  set  forth 
to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith,  by  his  blood.'  The  change 
here,  from  the  Authorised  '  faith  in  his  blood,'  is  consider- 
able, but  the  margin  retains  the  old  rendering.  A  great 
objection  to  the  latter  is  that  the  expression  is  unparalleled 
in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  without  sanction,  both  in 
substance  and  in  form.  The  distinctive  '  faith  '  of  the  New 
Testament  is  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  faith  that  he  was. 
the  Christ,  as  will  be  found  in  numerous  instances.* 

The  rendering  '  by  his  blood '  affords  a  sense  which  is- 
natural  and  suitable  to  the  context.  The  words  no  doubt 
mean  by  his  death,  and  they  belong  to  the  verb  '  set  forth  ;' 
— '  Jesus  Christ,  whom  God  set  forth  by  his  death  to  be  a 
propitiation,'  '  through  faith '  to  those  who  believe  in  him 
and  receive  him  as  the  Messiah.  This  statement  of  the 
Apostle  should  be  interpreted,  not  from  modern  beliefs  or 
theories,    but   from   a    due    consideration    of    the    similar 


*  Such  as  John  xi.  27.  xx.  31 ;  Acts  ix.  20;   I  John  v.  I,  5. 


25  THE    DEATH    OK    CHRIST. 

language  used  elsewhere  by  Paul,  from  the  known  sentiments 
of  the  Jews  towards  the  Gentile  world,  and  the  controversies 
to  which  these  gave  rise. 

Jesus  the  Christ  was  a  Jew,  'born  under  the  law;'  as  such 
he  could  not  be  the  Messiah  to  'sinners  of  the  dentiles.' 
This  was  a  first  princijjle  with  a  Jew."^  But  God  allowed  his 
beloved  Son,  the  Messiah,  to  put  away  his  Jewish  character 
and  limitations.  This  he  did  by  dying  ;  for  '  the  law  hath 
dominion  over  a  man  so  long  as  he  liveth  ' — not  when  he  is 
dead.  Christ  then,  as  now  become  a  spiritual  being,  could 
only  be  approached  'through  faith.'  The  Jews  again  were 
'  under  sin  '  as  well  as  the  Gentile  race  ;  and  by  their  sins 
they  were  unfitted  for  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  But  his 
death  removing  him  from  the  dominion  of  the  law  gave 
them  a  new  access  to  him  by  faith.  Thus  Christ  was  '  set 
forth  by  his  blood '  for  Jew  and  Crcntile  alike.  He  died  for 
all ;  for  the  sins  of  all  ;  and  his  death  might  be  spoken  of 
(perhaps  only  figuratively)  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  '  a  propitia- 
tion.'! This  with  its  result  of  'salvation'  to  all,  was  not 
gained  by  any  right  of  obedience,  or  of  '  works,'  but  only 
by  the  free  gift  (grace)  of  God.     Ephes.  ii.  4,  5. 

The  mind  of  the  great  Apostle  was  familiar  with  ideas 
derived  from  the  sacrificial  system  of  his  people,  and  he  natu- 
rally uses  language  and  figures  framed  upon  those  ideas. 
With  Paul  the  death  of  Christ  was  necessary  to  make  him 
cease  to  be  a  Hebrew,  to  make  him  spiritual,  and  Lord  of  a 
spiritual  kingdom,  open  to  all  men.  Paul  therefore  could 
speak  of  that  death  as  undergone  for  a  redeeming  purpose, 
in  other  words  as  a  sacrifice,  and  propitiation  'for  sin,' 
because  it  was  the  sins  of  the  world,  the  sins  of  '  all,'  that 
unfitted  them  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  I'hus  the  Christ 
died   for    'all,'    and  all  who   had  faith  in  him,   becoming 


*  Compare  Matt.  xv.  24,  25. 

t  The  same  (Greek)  word  is  used  for  the  '  mercy  scat,'  Heb.  ix.  5 — 
as  often  in  the  Septuagint. 


SACRIFICIAL    EXPRESSIONS.  29 

disciples,  were   in   this   sense   redeemed   by  his    '  precious 
.blood' 

Still,  however,  it  may  be  a  question  how  far  Paul's  language 
•on  this  subject  is  wholly  figurative  ;  whether  he  did  not,  in 
fact,  attach  a  true  expiatory  character  to  the  death.  If  he 
-did  so,  we  should  certainly  have  an  easy  and  natural  explana- 
tion of  many  expressions  both  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  and  of 
other  portions  of  the  New  Testament.  Perhaps  too  the  sup- 
position is  necessary,  in  order  to  account  for  the  remarkable 
unanimity  with  which  many  different  New  Testament 
writers  express  themselves  on  the  subject.  Why,  they  would 
reflect,  should  God  have  permitted  the  well-beloved  Son,  the 
Messiah,  to  die  ?  It  could  only  have  been  for  some  reason 
of  surpassing  importance,  and  this  may  well  have  been 
found  in  the  expiation  of  the  sins  of  the  world,  by  virtue  of 
that  dread  sacrifice.  If,  to  a  Jewish  mind  of  that  day,  there 
■could  be  no  remission  '  without  shedding  of  blood,'  here  was 
•the  sacrifice  graciously  provided  by  the  Divine  love  itself 

Those  who  think  that  such  an  interpretation  of  the 
language  is  demanded  by  the  case,  will  of  course  accept  it. 
Those  who  think  that  such  a  view  of  Christ's  death  is  per- 
manently binding  as  a  part  of  the  Christian  teaching  will 
frame  their  thoughts  of  Christianity  in  accordance  with  it. 
But  will  it  not  be  much  simpler  and  more  rational  to  con- 
■sider  the  whole  as  rather  the  temporary  and  accidental  form 
which  the  Gospel  necessarily  assumed,  under  the  controlling 
influence  of  the  circumstances  and  ideas  amidst  which  it 
.grew  up  into  power  ?  In  this  case,  it  seems  unnecessary  to 
let  ancient  beliefs  about  sacrifice  and  expiation  control  or 
supplant  those  higher  conceptions  of  the  spirituality  and 
love  of  God  which  have  come  to  us  partly  as  the  result  of 
the  teaching  of  Christ  himself,  partly  as  the  natural  develop- 
ment of  religious  ideas  among  cultivated  and  thoughtful 
men — to  say  nothing  of  the  wondrous  revelation  of  the 
Divine   character  and  power  given    to   us    in    these    latter 

c 


30  ATONEMENT — RECONCILIATION. 

days  by  the  discoveries  of  Science.     And  this  too,  let  us  not 
forget,  is  of  God's  doing  ! 

At  all  events  the  change  of  rendering  now  before  us  goes 
far  to  destroy  the  old  idea  that  '  faith  in  the  blood,'  or  in  the 
efficacy  of  the  '  blood  '  was  here  meant  by  the  Apostle.  It 
leaves  us  with  the  more  reasonable  thought  of  that  event  as 
simply  the  mediiini  by  which  Christ  was  '  set  forth  to  he  a 
propitiation,'  whether  this  expression  be  used  in  the  literal 
or  in  the  fio;urative  sense. 


8  13-  R( 

)m.  V.    II. 

Authorised. 

Rfatsed. 

.     .     .     '  by     whom    we   have 

.     .     ,     '  by  whom  A\e  have  now 

now  received  the  atonement." 

received  llie  reconciliation.' 

Ephes.  iv.  32. 
.     .     .     '  even     as      God     for   I        .     .     ,     '  even   as  God  also  in 
Christ's  sake  hath  forgiven  you.'       |    Christ  forgave  you.' 

In  the  former  of  these  passages  'reconciliation'  having 
taken  the  place  of  '  atonement,'  this  familiar  word  is  no 
longer  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament.  Very  probably 
it  was  used  by  the  translators  of  161 1  in  its  older  sense  of 
Reconciliation,  so  that  there  is  no  real  change  of  meaning, 
but  only  the  removal  of  a  term  liable  to  be  misunderstood, 
and  the  substitution  of  a  new  one  of  more  definite  signifi- 
cation. 

The  reconciliation  of  man  to  Ciod  by  faith  and  penitence 
is,  no  doubt,  what  the  Apostle  means — not  the  reconcilia- 
tion of  God  by  the  appeasing  of  His  anger.  Hence  again 
the  addition  in  a  preceding  verse  (Rom.  v.  9)  as  made  by 
the  Revision  is  at  least  doubtful  in  this  context.  The  words 
'  of  God '  are  inserted  in  italics,  and  the  Apostle  is  made  to 
speak  of  men  being  'saved  from  the  wrath  of  God'  through 
Christ.  But  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  emphatic  declara 
tion  of  other  passages,  which  ascribe  the  whole  scheme  of 


FOR    CHRISrS    SAKE.  3I 

redemption  to  the  Divine  Love— as  in  Eplies.  ii.  4.  The 
wrath  intended  is  probably  that  of  thie  law :  '  for  the  law 
worketh  wrath,'  as  expressed  in  Rom.  iv.  15.  The  law 
convicts  of  sin,  and  cannot  forgive,  but  must  exact  the 
penalty.  But  the  love  of  God  in  Christ,  says  the  Apostle, 
annulled  these  consequences  of  transgression.  Christ 
indeed,  might  be  said  to  have  borne  the  penalty  in  his  own 
body  on  the  tree— for  so  the  '  curse  of  the  law '  fell  upon 
him.  The  main  fact  is  otherwise  expressed  in  the  second  of 
the  two  above  cited  passages,  .  .  .  .  '  forgiving  one  another, 
even  as  God  also  in  Christ  forgave  you.'  This  stands 
instead  of  the  Authorised  '  for  Christ's  sake,'  and  the 
meaning  is  '  by  Christ,'  the  '  in,"  here  as  so  often  else- 
where, having  its  instrumental  force.  Thus  the  common 
l)hrase  of  the  popular  theology,  '  for  Christ's  sake '  has  now, 
like  the  word  'atonement,'  disappeared  from  the  New 
Testament.  It  occurs 'in  no  other  place,  and  God  will 
nowhere  be  found  spoken  of  as  doing  any  thing  'for 
Christ's  sake,'  but  only  'through'  him  and  'by  him,'  as 
the  immediate  agent.  Indeed,  we  may  well  understand,  the 
Almighty  Father  acts  always  from  his  own  perfect  goodness 
and  justice,  alone. 

Thus  the  doctrine  of  Atonement,  at  least  in  its  older  and 
grosser  forms,  widely  accepted  as  it  has  been  and  still  is, 
must  in  time  itself  disappear  from  Christian  theology,  along 
with  the  phrases  in  which  it  has  so  long  been  supposed  to 
find  expression.  It  is  a  sufficiently  curious  result  of  the 
Revision,  that  three  such  expressions  as  '  faith  in  his  blood,' 
'atonement,'  'for  Christ's  sake,'  should  have  been  obliterated 
from  the  Pauline  vrritings,  so  far  as  the  revised  text  is  con- 
cerned.* Their  removal,  we  may  well  believe,  can  be  only 
favourable  to  the   diffusion   of  ideas  of  the  Divine  love  and 


*  It   should   be   noted   that    the   expression    '  merits   of  Christ '   is 
equally  unkno^^-n  to  the  X.  T. 

C    2 


32  DIFFERENT    MODES    OF    PUNCTUATION 

mercy  higher  and  better  than  have  yet  prevailed  among  tlie 
great  multitudes  of  English  speaking  Christians. 

§  14.   Rom.  ix.  5:  'Whose  are  the  fathers  and  of  whom 
is  Christ  as  concerning  the  flesh,  who  is  over  all,  God  ble.ssed 
for  ever.'     In  the  Greek  the  article  stands   before  Christ, 
*  the  Christ,'  and  ought  not  to  have  been  here  omitted  in 
the  English.     The  slight  change  made  by  the  revisers  in  the 
text,  though   only  affecting  the  order  of  the  words,  is  not 
without  its  significance.     The  introduction  of  the  words  '  as 
concerning  the  flesh '  between  '  Christ,'  and  the  latter  part 
of  the  verse  will  prepare  the  reader  to  see  that  the  punctua- 
tion of  the  margin  has  on  its  face  a  certain  amount  of  pro- 
bability.      The  revisers    have    not  gone   further   than    this 
disturbance  of   the  verbal   order.     But  they  have  given  a 
margin  which,  for  the  first  time  in  a  volume  destined  to  be 
so  widely  read,   gives   notice  that  the  ordinary  or  orthodox 
interpretation  of  this  verse  is  not  a  certain  one.     The  same 
thing  has  been  fully  acknowledged,  or,  indeed,  the  altered 
interpretation  has  been  adopted  and  defended  by  Mr.  Beet 
(a  learned  and  much  esteemed  Wesleyan  commentator)  in 
his  recent  work  on  the   Epistle  to  the  Romans.     The  mar- 
ginal   note    of    the    revisers    runs     thus:     'Some    modern 
interpreters  place  a  full  stop  2S.\.^x  fleshy  and  translate  He  who 
is  God  over  all  be  (is)  blessed  for  ever  ;  or  He  who  is  over  all 
is  God^  blessed  for  ever.     Others  punctuate,  flesJi^  who  is  over 
all.      God  be  (is)  blessed  for  ever.''  ^     Thus  three  different 
modes  of  punctuation  are  admissible,   the  ancient  manu- 
scripts being  themselves  mostly  without  stops,  and  having 
the  words    written    close  together  without   space  between. 
We  need  not  dwell  upon  the  different  meanings  which  result 
from  these  different  modes  of  punctuation.      But  it  is  neces- 
sary to  point   out  two  or  three  facts  which   the  reader  will 


Thus,  in  the  new  Greek  text  of  Messrs.  Westcott  and  Hort.    1881. 


IX   ROM.  IX.   5.  33 

scarcely  suspect  from  the  marginal  statement  of  the  revisers. 
'  Soine  modern  interpreters  place  a  full  stop  after  flesh.'  Will 
it  surprise  the  reader  to  be  informed  that  nearly  all  recent 
interpreters  of  importance  do  this?  The  exceptions  are 
only  a  few  of  what  may  be  termed  the  English  school  of 
theology,  and  these  not  by  any  means  of  the  highest  autho- 
rity, even  in  their  own  class.  It  is  well  known  that  the  two 
eminent  Greek  Professors  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  respec- 
tively adopt  this  punctuation  —  Professors  Jowett  and 
Kennedy.  Of  recent  English  writers  who  do  the  same 
may  be  mentioned  Mr.  Beet,  as  before  stated;  "^  and  Dr.  S. 
Davidson,  in  his  translation  of  the  New  Testament  from 
Tischendorfs  text.  Dr.  Sanday,  and  Canon  Farrar,  though 
preferring  the  Authorised  punctuation,  fully  allow  that  the 
other  is  grammatically  admissible  {Expositor^  vol.  ix.  x.). 
The  American  revisers  accept  a  margin,  but  recommend 
the  substitution  of  a  simpler,  as  well  as  more  just  and 
accurate  form.  Going  beyond  the  school  of  English  autho- 
rities we  come  at  once  to  a  host  of  scholars  of  the  highest 
reputation — there  are  none  higher — who  adopt  and  defend 
one  or  other  of  the  renderings  which  the  revisers  consign 
to  the  margin.  Among  the  latter  may  be  enumerated  such 
men  as  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Winer,  Fritzsche,  Meyer, 


*  Mr.  Beet  obsen-es: — '  This  exposition  [with  the  new  punctuation] 
is  not  found  in  any  of  the  Fathers ;  but  is  adopted  by  Erasmus  and  by 
Winer,  Fritzsche,  and  Meyer,  who  are  by  all  admitted  to  be  almost 
unequalled  as  N.  T.  grammarians.  It  is  given  in  the  critical  editions 
of  Lachmann  and  Tischendorf.  Attention  has  also  been  called  in  the 
Expositor  [1880,  vol.  ix.  x]  .  .  .  .  to  the  fact  that  in  the  Vatican, 
Alexandrian,  Ephraim  and  Claromontane  MSS.,  there  are  stops  mark- 
ing off  the  words  in  question  as  a  doxology  to  the  Father ;  and,  in  the 
last  three,  spaces  which  prove  clearly  that  the  stop  is  from  the  first 
hand.  That  the  Alex.  MS.  has  the  stop  from  its  original  scribe,  every 
one  can  now  see  for  himself  in  the  lately  published  photograph.  The 
rarity  of  stops  in  all  these  MSS.  gives  importance  to  this  fact.'  Com. 
mentary  on  Rommis,  2nd  edition,  1881,  p.  268. 


34  ruxcTUAJiON   or  rom.   ix.   5. 

Ewald,  De  Wette,  and  many  more.  But  this  is  not  tlie 
whole  case.  'Some  modern  interpreters;'  but  there  are 
ancient  authorities,  too,  wliich  justify  the  same  punctua- 
tion. The  fact,  whatever  it  may  be  worth  as  evidence 
of  interpretation,  is  this,  that  three  out  of  the  four 
most  ancient  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  have 
a  stop  '  after  flesh. '  These,  as  now  well  known,  are 
the  Vatican  manuscript  (fourth  century),  the  Alexandrine 
(fifth),  the  Codex  Ephraim  (fifth  or  sixth),*  and  there  are 
several  others  of  minor  importance.  It  is  not  by  accident 
that  the  stop  occurs  in  these  documents,  although  it  cannot 
be  taken  as  actually  proving  that  the  scribe  who  in  the 
fourth  or  fifth  century  copied  these  ancient  manuscripts  in- 
terpreted the  words  marked  off  by  the  stop  as  a  doxology. 
He  may  in  each  case  have  referred  them  to  Christ ;  but  how 
can  this  be  shewn  ?  Surely  the  probability  is  the  other  way. 
Even  of  the  Fathers  who  apply  the  words  to  Christ,  some  of 
them  let  us  see  that  they  do  so  in  a  certain  subordinate  sense. 
Christ  was  '  Cod  over  all,'  because,  they  tell  us,  the  Father 
had  delivered  all  things  into  his  hand  ;  in  much  the  same 
way  as  Moses  is  said  to  have  been  '  Cod,'  to  Pharaoh,  and 
Aaron  his  brother  to  have  been  his  prophet  (Exod.  vii.  i). 

Objection  may  be  made  to  the  word  be  as  tiie  verb  rec[uired 
to  complete  the  sense.  Many  prefer  '  is,'t  but  this  point  is 
of  secondary  importance ;  the  main  fact  is  that  there  is  a 
greatly  pre|)ondcrating  weight  of  evidence  and  testimony  for 
tlie  new  punctuation.     This  it  is  too  clear,  and  much  to  be 

*  These  three  !MSS.  Mere  recently  examined  by  the  writer  with 
a  particular  view  to  the  punctuation  of  this  verse.  In  the  Alexandrine 
MS.  the  stop  is  unquestionably  a  prima  inanu.  In  the  Ephraim,  there 
is  a  space,  of  course  from  the  lirst  hand.  In  the  Vatican,  the  originality 
of  the  stop  may  be  doubtful. 

+  Professor  Keimedy  {Occasional  Sermons,  Appendix  Ill.'i,  prefers 
the  rendering,  '  He  who  is  over  all  is  God,  blessed  for  ever.'  Compare 
Rom.  i.  25  ;   2  Cur.  xi.  31. 


IN    THH    FORM    OF    GOD.  35 

regretted,    tlie    revisers    have    failed    to   indieate    in  their 

marginal  note,  leaving  indeed  a  contrary  imi^ression  upon 
the  readers  mind.* 


§  15.  Philip,  ii.  5-7:  'Jesus  Christ;  who,  being  in  the 
form  of  Ciod,  counted  it  not  a  prize  to  be  on  an  equality 
with  God,  but  emptied  himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,' 
<kc. — The  new  translation  certainly  introduces  something  of 
meaning  into  an  obscure  and  difficult  passage.  Yet  the 
rendering  is  less  clear  and  apposite  to  the  context  than  it 
might  have  been.  The  term  'prize'  is  hardly  a  just  render- 
ing of  the  original,  and  it  is  difficult  to  see  the  propriety  of 
the  word  in  such  a  place.  The  marginal  note,  '  Cir.  a  tiling 
to  be  grasped '  nearly  gives  the  real  sense,  and  inasmuch  as 
this  is  admitted  to  be  the  Greek,  why  was  it  not  received  into 
the  text  ?  Adopting  it,  we  may  read,  '  who,  being  in  the 
form  of  God  counted  it  not  a  thing  to  be  grasped  to  be  on 
.an  equality  with  God,  but  emptied  himself,  taking  the  form 
of  a  servant,'  cS:c. — more  literally  perhaps,  'counted  not  the 
being  equal  with  (iod  a  thing  to  be  seized,'  (or  grasped  at.) 
But  the  mere  translation  of  the  words  does  not  determine 
■their  interpretation.  This  must  be  sought  sim}jly  in  the 
feelings  and  circumstances  of  the  time  to  which  the  writer  of 
the  words  belonged,  so  far  as  these  are  known  to  us,  and  in 
the  similar  ideas  elsewhere  expressed  by  the  same  writer,  f 

To  St.  Paul,  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  long  expected 
Messiah,  a  personage  of  surpassing  importance  to  mankind, 
who  had  indeed  lived  for  a  time  upon  tiie  earth  in  the 
lowliest  guise  and  had  been  subjected  even  to  ignominy  and 
death,  in  order  to  fulfil  the  Divine  purposes  concerning  him. 


*  See  appendix,  note  A. 

+  According  to  the  exei^^etical  rule  corapendiou<Iy  laid  down  l)y  a 
great  authority  :—' Interpret  gi-ammatically,  historically,  contextually, 
^nd  minutely.'     Bishop  EUicott,  in  Aids  to  FaitJi. 


36  MEANING    OF    PHILIP.     II.     6. 

Nevertheless,  he  would  shortly  return  to  the  earth  in  power 

and  glory,  to  judge  the  world  and  to  take  back  with  him  to 

heaven  his  faithful  followers.     Such  was  Paul's  belief  and 

expectation,  as  seen  in  many  places  in  his  writings. — (See 

I  Thess.  iv.  13^18;  2  Thess.  i.  6 — 10;  compare  James  v. 

7,   8,   with   numerous  passing  allusions   in   other  books,  as 

I  Cor.  i.  7,  8,  vii.  29,  xv.  23,  51,  52  ;   Philip  ii.   20;   2   Pet. 

iii.    10 — 13.)     Various  expressions  to  the  same  effect  occur 

in  the  first  three   Gospels,  while  all  are  illustrated  by  the 

entire  strain  and  tenour  of  the  book  of  Revelation.     Paul 

constantly  reminds  us  that  it  was  the  Divine  love  and  mercy 

which    permitted   the   beloved   Son,  the    Messiah,   to   pass 

through  a  period  of  humiliation  and  suffering,  for  the  sake 

of  sinful  men.     God  in  his  mercy  to  man  gave  up  his  Son 

to  suffer  and  die,  as  the  Son  also  himself  willingly  obeyed 

the  Father's  behest.     In  the  first  instance,  Christ  came  to 

call  the  world  to  repentance,  that  all  who  received  or  should 

receive  him  with  the  faith  of  discipleship  might  be   '  saved ' 

in  the  approaching  '  day  of  the   Lord.'      Hence  therefore 

the  Christ,  great  Prince  and   potentate  thougli  he  was,  and, 

by  his  position  and  his  rights  as  the  divinely  protected  and 

beloved  Son,  far  exalted  above  every  earthly  thing,  yet  for  a 

time  had  put   aside  this  rightful  greatness  ;  '  though  he  was 

rich  yet  for  your  sakes  he  became  poor'  (2  Cor.  viii.  9)  and 

submitted  'even  to  the  death  of  the  cross.' 

The  exposition  of  the  passage  which  may  thus  be  drawn 
very  directly  from  a  due  consideration  of  historical  circum- 
stances and  ideas  shows  us  that  what  the  Apostle  is  alluding 
to  is  not  any  pre-existent  state  of  'Eternal  Godhead,'  or 
prerogatives  of  Divine  Majesty,"^  These  cannot  surely  be 
conceived  of  as  laid  aside  or  abandoned  by  the  Infinite. 
These,  therefore,  it  could  not  be,  but  simply  the  dignities. 


*  As  held,  for  example,   by  Bishop  Lightfoot,  in  his  Commentary 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians, 


THE    POPULAR    INTERPRETATION.  37 

and  rights  appertaining  to  the  Messianic  office.  These  Jesus 
did  not  count  as  '  a  thing  to  be  seized,'  so  as  to  be  '  on  an 
equality  with  God '  upon  the  earth, — although,  to  the  belief 
of  his  followers,  he  might  have  been  so,  and  should  here- 
after be  so,  at  his  second  coming.  But  he  divested  himself 
of  these  his  Messianic  attributes,  and  was  humble  and 
obedient  'even  unto  death.'  'Wherefore,'  the  Apostle  adds, 
Clod  hath  highly  exalted  him  and  given  him  a  name  above 
every  other  ;  that  '  in '  his  name  (not  at  his  name— a  mis- 
translation which  the  revisers  have  corrected),  that  in  his 
name  every  knee  should  bow,  and  every  tongue  confess  that 
he  is  Lord,   'to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.' 

The  popular  interpretation  of  this  passage  clearly  makes 
two  divine  beings,  each  of  whom  is  God ;  one  of  whom  is 
for  a  time  humbled  and  obedient,  while  the  other  has 
undergone  no  change,  but  on  the  contrary  exalts  and 
glorifies  his  fellow  God,  as  a  reward  for  his  submission.  So 
gross  a  conception  as  this  should  not  be  imputed  to  the 
Apostle  Paul,  and  is  altogether  inadmissible  and  uncalled 
for,  when  the  nature  of  the  case  and  the  ideas  of  the  time 
respecting  the  Messiah  are  duly  considered.  Without 
taking  note  of  such  considerations,  no  just  interpretation  ot 
this  or  any  other  difficult  passage  can  be  reasonably 
expected.  Interpretations  founded  upon  modern  systems  of 
theology  may  be  comparatively  easy  and  acceptable,  in 
other  respects;  but  surely  a  proper  regard  for  truth  requires 
something  more  than  this,  and  dictates  thought  and  care  and 
an  earnest  effort  to  attain  the  original  sense,  and  that  alone. 

The  margin  of  the  text  before  us  mentions  that  the 
Greek  word  rendered  'being'  may  mean  'being  originally.' 
No  doubt  it  has  sometimes  this  meaning,  or  one  very  near  to 
it.  But  many  instances  occur  in  the  New  Testament,  in 
which  it  simply  means  'being'  and  can  mean  nothing  more 
— for  example,  Rom.  iv.  19,  'he  being  about  a  hundred 
years  old.'     In  the  present  case  the  sense  may  be,  being 


38  MEANING    OF    PHILir.    II.    6. 

[jroperly,  or  in  realit)-,  in  spite  of  outward  appearances — 
being  by  virtue  of  his  Messianic  office.  This  expresses 
something  of  the  alleged  shade  of  meaning,  though  not 
precisely  the  same.  Ikit  '  being '  alone  is  all  that  is  needed, 
or  can  be  reasonably  claimed.  '  In  the  form  of  God  '  is  a 
difficult  phrase,  found  nowhere  else.  It  might  be  rendered 
'  in  the  form  of  a  god,'*  the  allusion  being  to  the  dignity 
and  power  belonging  of  right  to  the  Messiah,  which  would 
have  made  him  like  a  god  on  the  earth.  The  i)hrase  is 
evidently  antithetic  to  the  words  '  form  of  a  servant,'  and 
'  likeness  of  men,'  and  these  latter  suggest  the  meaning  of 
the  former.  They  cannot  therefore  denote  essential  nature, 
but  only  outward  condition.  Naturally,  by  the  dignity  of 
his  office,  the  Messiah  was,  and  might  have  been,  even  as  a 
god,  'in  the  form  of  a  god;'  but  he  did  not  grasp  at  this 
as  something  to  be  desired.  He  passed  it  all  by,  abandoned 
these  natural  rights  of  his  Messianic  office,  and  thus  gave 
an  exam])le  of  humility  and  self-forgetfulness  to  which  the 
Apostle  could  appeal,  and  which  he  earnestly  calls  upon  the 
Philippians  to  consider  and  to  imitate  (verse  4).  The  turn 
which  the  popular  theology  gives  to  the  passage  in  supposing 
it  to  mean  that  God,  incarnate  in  Jesus,  came  down 
from  heaven,  and  laid  his  divine  majesty  aside,  and  humbled 
himself  to  die,  is  simply  incredible,  and  almost  beyond  the 
pale  of  rational  discussion — as  much  so  as  the  ancient 
Greek  story  of  Apollo  and  Admetus.  The  god  served  the 
mortal  in  a  useful  capacity  for  a  specified  term,  and  so 
humbled  himself  by  temporarily  resigning  his  deity.  Truly 
it  is  time  that  Christian  theology  should  have  done  with 
such  fables! 


*  This  lower  sense  of  the  word  '  God '  is  met  with  in  the  Bible,  and 
was  perfectly  familiar  in  Paul's  time — Acts  xvii.  23,  i  Cor.  viii.  8. 


Ill':  WHO  WAS  .mami-lsikd. 


,^   i6,    T  Tim.  iii.  16  : 


Ar  IHORISKl).  j  Kkviski). 

•<  God  was  manifest  in  the  llesli.'  '  He  wlio  M'as  nianifesteJ  in  the 

I  flesh.' 

The  alteration  liere  is  important.  The  old  reading  is  pro- 
nounced untenable  by  the  revisers,  as  it  has  long  been 
known  to  be  by  all  careful  students  of  tlie  New  Testament. 
The  margin  runs,  'The  word  God.,  in  place  of  He  7C'ho, 
rests  on  no  sufficient  ancient  evidence.'  It  is  in  truth 
another  exami)le  of  the  facility  with  which  ancient  copiers 
could  introduce  the  word  (iod  into  their  manuscripts — a 
reading  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  itself  the  natural  result 
of  the  growing  tendency  in  the  early  Christian  times,  and 
under  the  influence  of  the  Logos  philosophy,  to  look  upon 
the  humble  Teacher  as  the  incarnate  A\'ord,  and  therefore, 
in  the  Logos  sense,  as  'God  manifested  in  the  flesh.'  The 
Alexandrine  manuscript  is  the  oldest  which  contains  this 
reading,  if  it  be  contained  in  that  manuscript.  About  this, 
however,  opinions'  differ  singularly,  the  manuscript  text 
being  in  such  a  condition  that  it  is  not  possible  to  decide 
with  absolute  certainty.  The  critics  differ  from  one 
another  in  a  way  which  suggests  that  their  judgment  can 
hardly  depend  on  eyesight  alone.  "^ 

>^  17.  Titus  ii.  13:  'our  great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ.'  2  Pet.  i.  i:  'the  righteousness  of  our  God  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ.' — These  two  verses  may  be  considered 
together.  They  present  perhaps  the  most  important  instance 
of  change  contained  in  the  new  text — only  to  be  equalled 
by  'God  only  begotten '  in  the  margin  of  John  i.  18.  In 
both  places,  the  margin  fairly  gives  notice  that  the  old 
translation  may  after  all  be  correct;  and  in  both  places  the 
American  committee  recommend  that  the  new  text  and  its 


*  See  Dr.   Scrivener's  very  interesting  note  on  the  subject  in  his 
Introduction  to  X.  T.  Criticism,  2nd  ed.,  p.  553. 


40 

margin  should  change  places.  It  is  thus  clear  that  the  old 
translation  in  each  case  has  as  much  authority  as  the  new 
one,  and  the  question  might  properly  be  asked,  Why  then 
did  the  English  revisers  alter  it  ? 

The  revised  rendering  yields  indeed  the  same  theological 
doctrine  which  is  supposed  to  be  contained  in  Rom.  ix.  5, 
Acts  XX.  28.  And  moreover,  the  degree  of  certainty 
attaching  to  it  is  the  same,  in  kind  and  amount,  as  that  of 
the  verses  just  mentioned — certainly  no  more,  if  so  much. 
In  all  the  cases,  this  can  afford  but  little  satisfaction  to  any 
reasonable  mind,  for  it  surely  forms  a  wonderfully  slight 
basis  upon  which  to  build  the  stupendous  conclusion  of  an 
incarnate  Deity. 

The  meaning  of  the  words  depends  grammatically  on  the 
application  of  one  of  the  rules  respecting  the  use  of  the 
Greek  article.  This  tells  us  that,  when  the  article  stands 
before  two  or  more  terms  united  by  a  conjunction  and 
used  attributively  or  as  names  of  office  or  dignity,  such 
terms  preceded  by  the  one  article  denote  one  and  the 
same  subject,  not  two  different  ones.  Thus,  Tit.  ii.  13 
literally  reads,  '  glory  of  the  great  God  and  Saviour  of  us 
Jesus  Christ'  Here  it  is  alleged  the  article  the  binds  the 
two  following  terms  together  so  as  to  make  one  subject  of 
them.  Similarly  in  2  Pet.  i.  i,  'Righteousness  of  the  God 
of  us  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.'  In  each  case,  it  is  alleged, 
the  terms  God  and  Saviour,  under  the  one  article  can  only 
denote  one  subject,  even  Jesus  Christ.  This  seems  all  very 
straightforward  and  very  clear.  But,  if  it  be  so,  why  then 
did  the  revisers  append  the  disturbing  alternative  rendering, 
'Or,  of  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jestis  Christ,^  in  the 
one  case;  in  the  other,  'Or,  our  God  a7id  the  Saviour  Jesus 
Chrisf?  Why  were  they  not  satisfied  with  one  correct  and 
sufficient  rendering,  that  of  their  own  text  ?  Simply,  because 
this  rendering  is  not  ce7'tain;  it  is  no  mo7'e  certainly  correct 
or  adequate  than  the  other;  nay,  when  the   analogy  of  the 


AND    OF    2    PETER    I.     I.  4I 

rest  of  the  Pauline  and  Petrine  Epistles  is  attended  to  it  is 
far  less  certain,  and  in  truth,  as  may  be  shown,  it  is  arbitrary 
and  inadmissible ! 

It  is  well  known,  and  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  the  rule 
above  referred  to  is  open  to  many  exceptions,  and  that  it  is 
not  applied  with  strictness  even  in  classical  Greek.  Such 
phrases  as  the  following  frequently  occur  : — "  the  citizens 
and  strangers,'  'the  cup-bearer  and  cook  and  groom,'  'the 
commanders  of  the  foot  soldiers  and  horsemen  ;'  "^ — in  each 
of  which  the  nouns  denote,  not  one  and  the  sa7ue  but 
different  subjects,  although  preceded  by  the  single  article. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  in  the  case  of  proper 
names,  or  words  equivalent  to  such,  it  is  common  enough 
for  one  article  to  stand  before  two  or  more  nouns  which  do 
nof  denote  one  and  the  same  subject  or  person — just  as  we 
might  say  '  the  king  and  queen,'  though  it  might  be  better- 
to  say  'the  king  and  the  queen.'  In  the  New  Testament 
we  have  'the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,'  and  there  are  many 
such  cases,  like  'the  Athenians  and  Peloponnesians,'  at  the 
beginning  of  Thucydides,  Book  I. 

Now,  words  like  Saviour,  Lord,  King,  of  frequent  use,  o 
well  understood,  distinctive  meaning,  and  familiar  as  belong- 
ing to  one  definite  person  and  no  one  else,  might  be  used 
without  the  article,  much  as  any  proper  name.  So  with  the 
word3a(r/XsL'j,  king,  as  found  in  classical  Greek.  And  where 
0  Qzos,  God,  occurred,  denoting,  as  it  always  does  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  one  only  Divine  Being,  how  could  it  ever 
occur  to  a  Jewish  or  Christian  reader  that  this  noun  was  to 
be  identified  wath  the  subject  of  a  following  noun  (w^hether 
Jesus  Christ  or  any  other)  simply  because  of  the  absence  of 
the  article  before  the  latter  ?  If  such  a  rule  is  to  be  so 
strictly  applied,  it  might  be  easy  to  show  to  a  reader  under 


*  The  references  are,  Plato,  Apol.  Soc.  ix.  (ed.  Cron.);  Herod,  iv.  "ji; 
Xen.  ]\Ie7norabilia  vii.  19. 


42  INTERPRETATION    OF    TIT.    II.     17, 

its  bondage  that  God  and  Satan  were  one  and  the  same  being  ! 
For  the  words  o  Qeos  kx]  ^ixQoXos  would  doubtless  be  good 
Greek,  however  objectionable  in  other  respects. 

It  follows  that  the  absence  of  the  article  in  the  second 
member  of  the  two  verses  in  question  affords  no  sufficient 
ground  for  the  rendering  adopted  by  the  revisers.  They 
give  it,  indeed,  as  before  noticed,  only  as  one  of  two  alter- 
native renderings,  so  far  admitting  the  doubt  which  attaches 
to  the  meaning,  or  at  the  least  disclosing  the  fact  that  a 
minority  of  the  revisers  (like  the  majority  of  the  American 
Committee)  considered  the  marginal  alternative  an  admis- 
sible translation.  As  good  orthodox  men  it  was  no  doubt 
quite  reasonable  on  the  part  of  the  English  revisers  to  prefer 
what  seemed  to  be  so  clearly  in  harmony  with  orthodox 
theology.  But  faithfulness  to  the  original  would  have 
equally  justified  adherence  to  the  Authorised,  especially  if 
the  good  principle  had  been  followed  of  making  '  as  few 
alterations  as  possible.'  The  long  descended  Authorised 
therefore,  being  on  the  ground,  ought  to  have  been  left 
unchanged,  and  probably  it  would  have  been  so  left  by 
revisers  not  so  strongly  under  the  influence  of  a  foregone 
conclusion. 

To  the  correctness  of  this  position  there  is  a  remarkable 
testimony  under  the  hand  and  seal  of  the  revisers  them- 
selves !  In  2  Thess.  i.  12,  we  have  exactly  the  same  form 
of  expression  as  in  2  Pet.  i.  i.  The  words  and  their 
order  are  all  the  sauie^  except  only  that  Kt'/j/or,  Lord,  takes 
the  place  of  (7wT>?p,  Saviour.  Thus : — (a)  2  Pet.  i.  i :  liter- 
ally, 'the  God  of  us  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ;'  {/))  2 
Thess.  i.  12:  literally,  'the  God  of  us  and  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.'  In  {a)  the  rendering  is  'our  God  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ;'  in  (/^)  it  is  '  our  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.' 
To  which  of  these  inconsistent  translations  of  the  same  form 
of  words  will  the  revisers  adhere  as  correct? 

There  is  one  fact  which  possibly  should  be  allowed  to 


AND    OF    2    PKTKR    I.     I.  43 

modify  the  conclusion  above  arrived  at,  as  to  the  translation 
of  2  Pet  i.  I.  The  second  Epistle  called  after  Peter  is 
one  of  the  latest  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  On  this 
account  it  may  be  that  the  revised  rendering  ought  to  stand. 
In  the  second  century,  it  is  beyond  question,  Christ  came  to 
be  spoken  of  as  personally  God— an  easy  consequence, 
as  before  shewn,  of  the  application  to  him  of  the  Logos 
doctrine.  But  this  remark  does  not  ai)ply  to  any  writer  of 
the  New  Testament  so  early  as  Paul — nor  indeed  to  any  of 
the  New  Testament  writers,  unless  it  be  the  fourth  Evangelist 
(John  XX.  28)  and  the  writer  of  2  Peter,  if  the  latter  really 
meant  what  is  attributed  to  him. 

It  may  be  further  observed  that  the  revised  text  of  these 
two  verses  not  only  contradicts  the  general  tenour  of  the  New 
Testament,  in  which  0  Qsls  is  everywhere  distinguished  from 
JesusChrist,.butthat  thisfactis  fullyrecognised  by  such  authori- 
ties as  Winer, "^  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Davidson,  even  Alford,  with 
many  more, — except  only  that  Davidson  in  2  Pet.  i.  i 
follows  the  new  rendering— probably  on  account  of  the 
development  of  doctrine  just  alluded  to.  Bishop  Ellicott, 
although  on  exegetical  grounds  defending  the  new 
rendering  ('Pastoral  Epistles,'  in  loc.)  has  yet  ex})ressly 
guarded  himself  against  too  servile  a  deference  to  the  rule 
of  the  article  above  referred  to.  His  words  are  clear  and  to 
the  point : — '  Lastly,  several  examples  of  what  is  called 
Granville  Sharp's  rule,  or  the  inference  from  the  presence  of 
the  article  only  before  the  first  of  two  substantives  connected 
by  xa/,  that  they  both  refer  to  the  same  person  or  class 
must  be  deemed  very  doubtful.  The  rule  is  sound  in  prin- 
ciple, but  in  the  case  of  proper  names  or  quasi-proper 
names,  cannot  safely  be  pressed.' — Aids  to  Faith  (4th.  ed.), 
p.  462.1 

*  See  Appendix,  note  B. 
f  See  Appendix,  Note  C. 


44  THE    THREE    HEAVENLY    WITNESSES. 

§  1 8.    I   John  V.  7,  8. 


Revised. 
7.  'And  it  is  the  Spirit  that 
beareth  witness,  because  the  Spirit 
is  the  truth.  8.  For  there  are 
three  who  bear  witness,  the  Spirit, 
and  the  water,  and  the  blood  ;  and 
the  three  agree  in  one.' 


Authorised. 
7.  '  For  there  are  three  that 
bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father, 
the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  : 
and  these  three  are  one.  8.  And 
there  are  three  that  bear  witness 
in  earth,  the  spirit  and  the  water 
and  the  blood  :  And  these  three 
agree  in  one.' 

The  Revision,  it  will  be  observed,  has  achieved  the  dis- 
tinction of  adding  a  new  verse  to  the  Bible — that  is  to  say, 
it  has  taken  the  latter  part  of  the  Authorised  verse  6,  and 
made  it  count  as  Revised  verse  7.  To  balance  this,  the 
Authorised  verse  7  is  quietly  dropped  out  of  the  text,  not  a 
word  being  said  about  it.  Such  is  the  ignominious  end  of 
this  famous  verse — the  only  verse  in  the  Bible  in  which  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  stated,  and  was  no  doubt  in- 
tended to  be  stated.  It  could  scarcely  have  been  differently 
treated  ;  for,  as  the  verse  is  contained  in  no  Greek  manu- 
script whatever  worth  noticing,  there  was  actually  nothing  to 
work  upon.  Faithful  revisers,  of  course,  could  only  revise 
what  there  was  to  revise  !  But  yet  they  might  have  shewn  a 
little  respect  for  an  interpolation  so  ancient,  so  wide-spread, 
so  much  valued,  and  doubtless,  by  many,  so  much  regretted ; 
and  they  might  certainly  have  given  their  readers  some  sort 
of  notice  that  it  was  once  there,  and  is  there  no  more. 
Better,  perhaps,  as  it  is — better  at  least  for  the  popular 
creeds,  to  let  the  verse  pass  quietly  into  oblivion.  Requiescat 
in  pace  !  and  may  no  ill-judging  defender  of  discarded 
texts  attempt  to  disturb  its  repose. 

Near  the  close  of  the  same  chapter  there  stands  a  remark- 
able expression,  which  although  untouched  by  the  Revision 
is  yet  deserving  of  a  passing  notice.  It  is  i  John  v.  20  : 
'  This  is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life,'  which  a  hasty  reader 
might  suppose  to  be  said  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  the  writer  of 
these  Epistles  sometimes  refers  to  a  remoter,  instead  of  a 


I   JOHN  V.    20.  45 

nearer,  antecedent,  and  no  doubt  in  this  instance  he  means 
by  '  this,'  not  the  subject  last-named,  but  '  him  that  is  true,' 
i.e.^  God  (verse  19.)  There  is  a  similar  construction  in  the 
Second  Epistle  of  John,  verse  7. — '  This  is  the  deceiver  and  the 
anti-christ,'  where  the  pronoun  evidently  refers,  not  to  Jesus 
Christ,  but  to  the  more  distant  noun,  the  '  deceivers,'  who 
'confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ cometh  in  the  flesh.' 


CONCLUSION. 

DOCTRINAL    RESULTS    OF    THE    REVISION. 

Since  the  publication  of  the  revised  New  Testament,  it 
has  been  frequently  said  that  the  changes  of  translation 
which  the  work  contains  are  of  little  importance  from  a 
doctrinal  point  of  view; — in  other  words,  that  the  great 
doctrines  of  popular  theology  remain  unaffected,  untouched 
by  the  results  of  the  revision.  How  far  this  assertion  is 
correct,  the  careful  reader  of  the  foregoing  pages  will  be  able 
to  judge  for  himself  To  the  writer  any  such  statement 
appears  to  be  in  the  most  substantial  sense  contrary  to  the 
facts  of  the  case,  for  the  following  reasons  :— 

( 1 )  The  only  passage  in  the  New  Testament  which  seemed 
like  a  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  has  been 
removed  by  the  revisers  as  spurious.  See  above  §  18,  and 
compare  §  7. 

(2)  The  sole  Deity  of  the  Father  has  been  re-affirmed  in  a 
remarkable  case  in  which  the  authorised  version  had 
singularly  misrepresented  the  original  words.  'The  only 
(iod  '  of  John  V.  44,  affords  evidence  equally  strong  and 
clear  with  that  of  John  xvii.  3,  that  the  writer  of  this  Gospel 
could  not  have  intended  to  represent  Jesus,  the  Christ,  or 
Messiah,  or  even  the  Logos  in  him,  as  God  in  the  same  high 


46  RESULTS    OF    THE    REVISION 

sense  of  Infinite  and  Eternal  Being  in  wliieh  Hi:  is  so. 
AVho  is  'the  Only  'Yruc  Ood'  The  margin  of  John  i. 
18,  '  (iod  only  begotten,'  used  of  the  Logos,  in  no 
way  lessens  the  force  of  this  remark,  but  serves  to  strengthen 
it.  An  '  only  begotten  (lod,'  a  ^hrtpos  Osis  or  '  second 
God,'  could  never  have  been  intended  by  the  Evangelist  to 
be  represented  as  t't/iia/  to  the  Being  Avhom  he  designates  as 
'the  only  Ciod.'  Indeed  this  highest  of  Names  the  same 
Evangelist  carefully  lets  us  see  that  Jesus,  or  the  Logos 
speaking  in  him,  disclaimed  for  himself,  making  himself 
simply  '  Son  of  God '  (John  x.  35) — no  doubt  here  in  the 
Logos  Messiah  sense. 

(3)  The  character  of  the  baptismal  formula  is  greatly 
altered  by  the  simple  substitution  of  the  word  'into'  for  'in' 
— shewing  us  that  there  could  never  have  been,  as  people 
have  commonly  supposed,  any  ecclesiastical  magic  in  the 
phrase  'In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,'  seeing  that  this  phrase  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
New  Testament  at  all,*  and  that  the  words  simply  express  a 
change  of  mind,  on  the  part  of  the  convert,  from  disbelief  or 
denial  to  the  profession  of  the  allegiance  which  constituted 
discipleship. 

(4)  One  remarkable  instance  in  which  the  epithet  '  God ' 
Avas  given  to  Christ  (i  Tim.  iii.  16)  has  been  excluded  from 
the  text,  and  others  of  similar  kind  are  admitted  by  the 
Revision  to  be  uncertain.  See  above,  in  Acts  xx.  28 ; 
Rom.  ix.  5;  Tit.  ii.  13:  i  Bet.  i.  i.  In  both  the  last 
named  texts  the  apparent  sui)port  newly  extended  to 
orthodox  theology  by  the  change  of  translation  is  virtually 
recalled  and  nullified  by  those  who  offer  it;  the  new 
rendering  being  shewn  to  be  doubtful,  in  other  words, 
worthless,  by  the  marginal  admission,  that  the  change  was  un- 
called for  and  purely  arbitrary.     See  above,  >^§  11,  14,  16,  17. 

*  It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  this  threefold  formula  is  nowhere 
found  in  use  in  the  N.  T.  All  the  baptisms  in  the  Book  of  Acts  are  in 
confession  of  Christ  simply — as  Acts  ii.  38,  viii.  16,  xix.  5.    ■ 


UXFAVOURAllI.;':     TO    ORlllODOXV.  47 

(5)  The  only  instance  in  the  New  Testament  in  which 
the  rehgious  worship  or  adoration  of  Christ  was  apparently 
implied,  has  been  altered  by  tlie  Revision  :  *  At  the  name  of 
Jesus  every  knee  shall  bow,'  is  now  to  be  read  '///  the  name; 
— See  above,  ^15.  Moreover,  no  alteration  of  text  or  of 
translation  will  be  found  anywhere  to  make  up  for  this  loss' 
as,  indeed,  it  is  well  understood  that  the  New  Testament 
contains  neither  precei)t  nor  example  which  really  sanction 
the  religious  worship  of  Jesus  Christ."^'' 

(6)  The  Avord  '  Atonement '  disappears  from  the  New 
Testament,  and  so  do  the  connected  phrases,  '  faith  in  his 
blood,'  and  'for  Christ's  sake.'  These  so  commonly  used 
expressions  are  shewn  to  be  misrepresentations  of  the  force  of 
the  original  words,  such  alterations  evidently  throwing  the 
most  serious  doubt  upon  the  important  popular  doctrine  of 
which  they  have  hitherto  been  a  main  or  indispensable  support. 

The  changes  just  enumerated  are  manifestly  of  great 
importance,  and  are  they  not  wholly  unfavourable  to  the 
popular  theology?  Many  persons  will  deny  this,  but  it  is 
hard  to  see  on  what  grounds  they  do  so.  Or,  if  it  be  true 
that  the  popular  orthodoxy  remains  unaffected  by  such 
■changes,  the  inference  is  unavoidable  that  popular  ortho- 
doxy must  be  very  indifferent  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
foundation  on  which  it  stands. 

But  indeed  it  is  easy  to  see  that  it  is  not  within  the  New 
Testament,  but  in  the  traditional  creeds  and  other  such 
documents,  that  the  theology  of  the  day  finds  its  clearest 
exposition  and  its  true  strength.  Hence  it  was  hardly  to  be 
expected  that  any  revision  of  the  New  Testament  would  be 
felt  to  have  done  it  harm,  whatever  the  light  thrown  from 

*  Some  would  find  such  sanction  in  the  ideal  description  of  the 
honour  paid  to  the  Lamb  in  the  Book  of  Revelation,  Capp.  iv.  v.  But 
the  praises  of  the  Lamb  here  recorded  are  evidently  not  religious 
worship,  in  the  high  sense  in  which  it  is  offered  to  '  Him  that  liveth 
for  ever  and  ever;'  nor  can  it  be  shewn  that  the  author  of  this  book 
intended  to  recommend  the  worship  of  the  glorified  Jesus  to  his 
disciples  on  earth,  even  supposing  that,  had  he  done  so,  he  ought  to  le 
<obeved  ! 


48  DOCTRINAL    RESULTS. 

any  source  upon  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  The  up- 
holders of  orthodox  doctrine,  Evangelical  or  Anglican,  need 
not  therefore  be  much  troubled  by  the  altered  aspect  which 
the  Scriptures  may  assume  in  consequence.  The  idea  of 
revising  the  standards  has  not  yet  been  seriously  entertained. 
Indeed,  legally  speaking,  an  angel  from  heaven,  much  less 
a  Revision  Company,  could  not  be  allowed  to  touch  an 
Athanasian  Creed  or  a  Schedule  of  doctrines  in  a  chapel 
trust!  But  is  this  a  position  which  those  who  profess  to 
value  the  New  Testament  as  the  sole  fountain  of  doctrinal 
truth  can  feel  themselves  quite  happy  to  accept? — to  be 
bound  so  unalterably  to  the  ideas  of  the  past,  and  unable  to 
change  any  thing,  lest  it  should  contradict,  not  the  New 
Testament,  but  the  Creed,  or  the  imposed  Article,  or  the 
chapel  trust  deed,  or  the  Confession  of  Faith  approved  of 
old  by  a  Church  Assembly  or  a  Conference? 

It  is  Uttle  then  to  be  wondered  at,  that  the  doctrinal  results 
of  the  Revision  should  be  either  lightly  estimated,  or  alto- 
gether denied.  Nevertheless,  of  one  thing  we  may  be  sure  : 
in  the  light  of  advancing  science  and  historical  research  the 
unlovely  dogmatic  temper  will  gradually  cease  to  exist,  or  be 
ashamed  to  shew  itself.  Those  in  particular  whom  that 
temper  inspires  to  judge  others,  and  even  to  proclaim  that 
they  shall  '  perish  everlastingly '  because  they  decline  to 
profess  what  they  do  not  believe — such  persons  will  doubt- 
less become  more  reticent  as  time  passes,  and  as  knowledge 
and  right  feeling  increase.  Meanwhile  it  is  well  that  some 
few,  though  but  a  few,  should  still  utter  their  protest,  as 
occasion  requires,  against  uncharitable  assumptions  and  the 
manifold  perversion  of  the  words  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ- 
This  it  may  long  be  necessary  to  do.  May  those  to  whom 
it  falls  to  do  it  discharge  their  duty  faithfully,  and  so, 
amidst  good  or  evil  report,  contribute  in  some  humble 
measure  to  the  earlier  coming,  and  the  surer  establishment 
in  the  world,  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 


APPENDIX. 


Note  A. — On  Rom.  ix.  5,  the  following  are  Winer's 
remarks  in  reply  to  those  who  argue  from  the  position  of 
the  word  slXoynros  (blessed)  that  the  sentence  in  question 
cannot  be  a  doxolog}',  but  must  be  referred  to  Christ : — '  It 
is  natural  that  in  those  sentences  particularly  which  have  the 
character  of  exclamations,  as  in  blessings,  the  predicate 
should  stand  at  the  head;  ....  This  remark  also 
applies,  as  a  rule,  to  the  doxologies  of  the  O.  T.,  Gen. 
ix.  26,  I  Sam.  xxvi.  25,  2  Sam.  xviii.  28,  Ps,  cvi.  (cv.)  48,  al. 
But  it  is  only  by  empirical  commentators  that  this  arrange- 
ment can  be  regarded  as  unalterably  fixed ;  for  where  the 
subject  expresses  the  main  idea  and  especially  where  it  is 
antithetical  to  another  subject,  the  predicate  both  may  and 
will  stand  after  it:  comp.  Ps.  Ixvii.  20  (LXX).  Hence  in 
Rom.  ix.  5,  if  the  words  0  Im  'ravruv  Qeoj  slxoyvros  x.T.x,  are 
referred  to  God,  this  collocation  of  the  w^ords  is  perfectly 
suitable,  and  indeed  necessary.' — Winer,  Grammar  of  N.  T. 
Greeks  translated  by  Moulton,  pp.  689-90. 

Note  B. — Titus  ii.  13  : — The  following  will  shew  Winers 
judgment  on  this  passage  : — '  In  Tit.  ii.  13,  \'ni<^a.nta.  t^j  Vo^n? 

rov  iJiEyaXov  9bqv  kou  a-urrjpos    rtu.ujv  ^Iriaov   ^ptarov,     considerations 

derived  from  Paul's  system  of  doctrine  lead  me  to  believe 
that  auTvpos  is  not  a  second  predicate,  co-ordinate  with  6boZ, 
— Christ  being  first  called  0  (xiyas  Osos  and  then  a-uirr.p.  The 
article  is  omitted  before  a-urripos  because  this  word  is  defined 
by  the  genitive  yiiJ.^v,  and  because  the  apposition  precedes 
the  proper  name  :  of  the  great  God  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 


50  APPENDIX. 

Christ.  Similar!)-  in  2  Pet.  i.  i,  where  there  is  not  even  a 
pronoun  with  a-ouTrjpos.''  To  this  ^^'iner  adds  a  note  as 
follows  : — '  In  the  above  remarks  I  had  no  intention  to  deny 
that,  in  point  oi gra/n;;iar,  a-urrjpos  -KfxZv  may  be  regarded  as  a 
second  predicate,  jointly  dependent  on  the  article  roZ  ;  but 
the  dogmatic  conviction  derived  from  Paul's  writings  that 
this  Apostle  cannot  have  called  Christ  f/ie  great  God  induced 
me  to  shew  that  there  is  no  grammatical  obstacle  to  our 
taking  the  clause  ica<  auTTJpos  ■k{ji.mv  'ivs.  ^pis.  by  itself,  as  referring 
to  a  second  subject.'  To  this  Dr.  Moulton,  the  translator 
and  editor  of  A\'iner\s  Cirammar,  adds  the  following  words  : 
— '  This  passage  is  very  carefully  examined  by  Bishop 
Ellicott  and  Dean  Alford  /;/  toe,  and  though  these  writers 
come  to  different  conclusions  (the  latter  agreeing  with 
Winer,  the  former  rendering  the  words  '  of  our  great  God 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ'),  they  are  entirely  agreed  as  to 
the  admissibility  of  both  renderings  in  point  oi  granniiar.'' — 
Winer,  N.  T.  Graniuiar,  p.  162,  After  this  it  would  seem 
that  little  more  need  be  said  on  the  subject. 

Note  C. — A  writer  in  the  Gnardicni  newspaper  (Supple- 
ment, August  24,  18S1),  strongly  approving  of  the  new 
rendering  of  Tit.  ii.  13  and  2  Pet.  i.  i,  insists  upon  the 
identity  of  the  two  cases  with  2  Pet.  i.  11,  '  the  kingdom  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.'  He  observes  that  the 
sequence  of  the  words  is  exactly  similar,  and  therefore  that 
the  rendering  should  be  similar.  This  is  true  as  to  the 
sequence,  but  there  is  one  fundamental  difference  which, 
along  with  other  essential  considerations,  is  entirely  and 
most  strangely  left  out  of  sight  by  the  writer  referred  to. 

The  difference  meant  consists  in  the  occurrence  of  the 
word  God  in  the  two  cases  under  discussion,  and  of  Lord 
simply  in  2  Pet.  i.  11.  The  rule  respecting  the  article  does 
not  hold  in  cases  where  the  subjects  are  already  well  under- 
stood to  be  distinct.  Thus  0  (^iKmitos  xx)  AXs^av^pos  do  not 
imply  that   Philip  and  Alexander  are  one  and  the  same  per- 


APPENDIX.  51 

son  ;  so  neitlicr  docs  0  Osos  nx]  a-ujrrjp'iriT.  "/j^ta-r.  ncccssaril)- imply 
that  God  and  Christ  are  one  and  the  same  person,  inasmuch 
as  they  were  well  known  to  be  two,  and  are  everywhere 
recognised  and  spoken  of  as  two.  The  analogy  of  the 
Pauline  writings  is  strongly  against  their  identification,  nor 
can  the  mere  accident  of  their  collocation  or  sequence 
under  one  article  be  reasonably  held  to  establish  it.  Paul 
even  speaks  of  God  as  'the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ' 
(Ephes.  i.  17);  how  then  is  it  ])ossible  to  suppose  that  he 
really  intended  to  call  Christ  '  tlie  great  God,'  in  Tit.  ii.  13  ? 
This  is  quite  as  incredible  as  the  disputable  and  unnecessary 
rendering  of  Rom.  ix.  5,  which  would  make  Christ  '  God 
over  all'  It  cannot  then  be  denied  that  Paul  in  no  instance 
really  identifies  God  and  Christ,  but  everywhere,  without  ex- 
ception, keeps  them  distinct  in  his  expressions: — 'One  Lord, 
one  faith,  one  baptism,  One  God  and  Father  of  all '  (Ephes. 
iv.  5,  6);  'To  us  there  is  One  God,  the  Father  ....  and 
one  Lord  Jesus  Christ'  (L  Cor.  viii.  .6);  'the  God  and 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ'  (Ephes.  i.  3). 


Books  on  Sale  at  the  Depository  of  the  British  and  Foreign 
Unitarian  Association^  37,  Norfolk  St,  Strand,  London. 


Positive  Aspects  of  Unitarian  Thought  and  Doctrine. 

Ten  Lectures  by  various  Authors.  Preface  by  Dr.  Islartineau.  3s.  6d. 
Ditto,  Cheap  Edition,  is. 

The  Prophets  and  their  Interpreters,  by  Dr.  G.  Vance 

Smith.     6d. 

The  Bible  and  Popular  Theology,  by  Dr.  G.  Vance 
Smith.     2s.  6d. 

The  Spirit  and  the  Word  of  Christ,  by  Dr.  G.  V.  Smith, 
Second  Edition.     2s.  6d.  and  is. 

Eternal  Punishment,  with  Remarks  on  Dr.  Pusey's  Defence 
of  the  Doctrine,  by  Dr.  G.  V.  Smith.     2nd  Edition,  2d. 

Channing,  Dr.,  Works  of,  in  one  vol.,  3s.  6d.  or  4s. 
American  Edition,  larger  type,  53. 

Channing,  Dr.,  Memoir  of,  by  W.  H.  Channing.   2  vols.,  5s 

A  Discourse  of  Matters  Pertaining  to  Religion,  by 
Theodore  Parker.     2s  ;  or  is.  4d.  if  25  copies  ordered. 

Parker,  Theodore,  Life  and  Writings  of,  by  Dr.  Reville. 
IS.  3d. 

Unitarianism  Defended.  The  Liverpool  Lectures,  by 
James  Martineau,  J.  H.  Thom,  and  H.  Giles.     5s. 

A  Critical  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  a  Future  Life, 
by  Dr.  W.  R.  Alger.  With  Notes  and  Indexes  of  Authors  and 
Subjects,  by  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot.     los. 

The  Soul's  Way  to  God,  and  other  Sermons,  by  Charles 
Beard,  B.A.     Third  Edition.     2s.  6d. 

Reason  in  Religion,  by  Dr.  F.  H.  Hedge.     2s.  6d. 

History  of  the  Dogma  of  the  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ,  by 
Dr.  Reville.     4s. 

Christ  the  Revealer,  by  J.  H.  Thom.     With  Essays  on 

the  Son  of  God,  and  on  Prayer,  by  the  same  Author.  2s.  6d. 

History  of  the  Corruptions  of  Christianity,  by  Dr 
Priestley.     2s.  6d. 


* ^  Any  of  these  works  will  be  forwarded,  carriage  paid,  at  the  prices 
named,  by  order  to  BOOK  ROOM,  37,  Norfolk  Street,  Strand,  Lon- 
don.    Catalogues  of  books  and  tracts  may  be  obtained  on  application, 
or  will  be  sent  post  free. 

PRINTED   BV    GEO.    REVEIRS,    GRAYSTOKE   PLACE,    FETTER   LANg,  E.G. 


Date  Due 

FACULTY 

^CULTV 

n^ 

gsu 

%:     ^^^^ 

i 

f)